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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5xevr9 | What/Who are Reuters? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dehm1rp"
],
"text": [
"They are a news outlet that primarily focusses on reporting, not broadcasting. Similar to the associated press. Basically, every news outlet can't have people stationed all over the world, so these news agencies fill that void. They report from places like Romania, not much going on there that's in the world news, so CNN isn't going to station anyone there. Now, tomorrow there is a train crash that kills 30 people. Reuters covers the story, does the local interviews, attends the press conferences, etc. And reports it to their home base, which sells it to CNN for distribution."
],
"score": [
47
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xewa9 | What exactly is apartheid? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dehkuji"
],
"text": [
"Apartheid is state-sponsored discrimination (typically racial or ethnic) such that people of the disfavored classes have fewer rights, less access to employment or education, etc., and so on. It's not just having a racist society, but rather it is the policy of the government to maintain the racist status quo. This can be a formal policy or a de facto one, but the thing that makes it apartheid is that the state itself is enforcing discrimination."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xfc49 | Before electricity was understood, how did people explain static electricity & static shocks? | I'm imagining someone in the medieval ages would think static electricity shocks would be akin to magic... | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dehnk2p"
],
"text": [
"People on the Mediterranean have known about electric fish since before recorded history. The African electric catfish, for example, is found in Egypt and can deliver a mild electric shock. Although they didn't understand electricity, it was repeatable, so they were able to figure out that there were particular creatures that created this weird shocking, numb feeling. Around 2,600 years ago, the Ancient Greeks were experimenting with static electricity from amber and connected it to the feeling of being shocked by an electric fish. Whatever this thing was, it wasn't \"magic\", because people understood where to find this thing in nature (electric fish) and how to make it themselves (rub amber with a cloth). About 400 years ago, the phenomenon was given the name \"electricity\", from the Greek word for amber. What ancient people defined as \"magic\" is different from our own understanding of the word. But with something like gravity or shadow or electricity, if people could predict what it does and how to make it do that thing, it wasn't magic, it was just a part of life."
],
"score": [
16
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5xffb4 | Do We Need Milk? Why is Milk a Necessary Purchase in the Average Household? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dehnyo9",
"dehoh2d",
"dehp4m8"
],
"text": [
"To answer this question simply: No, we don't need milk. There are plenty of other ways to receive the nutrients that it provides. So many families buy milk because a lot of convenience foods require it, like oatmeal, boxed macaroni and cheese, boxed muffin mixes, cereal, etc. Also, if you live in the United States, then the dairy industry has huge lobbying power in Washington DC. So there is a strong push for dairy products whether it be through advertising or in schools or anywhere. The dairy industry wants you to believe that cow's milk is an extremely important part of your diet, when in reality it doesn't have to be.",
"Anthropologically speaking, milk is for babies. Lactose intolerance is perfectly normal. The human species did not drink milk past early childhood for hundreds of thousands of years. The fact that northern Europeans developed an adult tolerance for dairy products is a bit weird if you think about it, but its a healthy source of protein, fat and calcium which was available in the winter and in some forms like cheese , it kept well. So, if you're not drinking milk, there's nothing wrong with that. Personally, I'm glad my ancestors developed a tolerance for it, because I like ice cream.",
"Milk is a delicious food, and for most of European descent fully digestible. So it is a part of a lot of recipes and a staple food in Europe and North America. But no specific food is \"necessary\", but food in general is."
],
"score": [
20,
13,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xfo92 | Why do video games have to warn about seizures and movies do not seem to? | Every time I boot any game up I get this warning, but I can turn Netflix on without any warning. What is different between the two? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dehqvfk",
"dehr22i"
],
"text": [
"It's not just about flashing lights it's also about perspective. It does happen during movies like Blair Witch and Cloverfield, just not as often as video games. It's called photosensitive epilepsy and for me it happens worst during first person shooter games. It includes dizziness, sweating, nausea and sometimes full on seizures. Source: I have it.",
"General rule of thumb: Anytime there is a warning on something, it's because a company wants to avoid liability. There were some high profile cases in the 1990s IIRC where video game developers were sued because their games caused kids to have seizures. I don't think any of the lawsuits were successful but because the video game industry was still burgeoning at the time, developers got in the habit of including the warnings just to cover their asses."
],
"score": [
11,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5xfzkm | Why does Mao have such a bad reputation? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dehssnj",
"deht5fa"
],
"text": [
"[Critics consider him a dictator comparable to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin who severely damaged traditional Chinese culture, as well as a perpetrator of systematic human rights abuses and estimate that Mao was responsible for 40 to 70 million deaths through starvation, prison labour and executions, ranking his tenure as the top incidence of excess mortality in human history.]( URL_0 ) I think it's mostly the killing off of 40 - 70 million people, less so the whole damaging traditional culture thing. Though both are pretty bad, of course.",
"It's not an explanation, but I can really recommend the book \"Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China\" by Jung Chang. It's very well written and gives a super understanding of what China was like during Mao (and what happened just before and after). And it's quite easy read :)"
],
"score": [
20,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xhzth | How has the food situation in Venezuela become to be as bad as it is? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dei78av",
"deijdcx"
],
"text": [
"The country's top like 95% of exports are all oil/petroleum based products. Oil prices are really low right now, which means what they so heavily relied on is now not enough to keep them thriving. So since their economy is tanking, they don't have the money to import a lot of things, food being one of those items. So many Venezuelans are actually going to neighboring countries just to do grocery shopping, at an affordable price.",
"Venezuela is a train wreck of dutch disease coupled with massive state corruption and static governmental policies. Dutch Disease is an economic theory where when a country finds a valuable export commodity, such as oil, their economy tends to revolve around it as a means of generating economic wealth. This leads their currency to gain value as it is largely tied to the value of the exporting commodity. This in turn makes many other industries within the country no longer economically viable because it is cheaper to import and the exporting such goods costs buyers far more than buying from somewhere else. Eventually, this leads to a mono culture economy, such as the oil producing nations. This in itself is bad, but it is hardly fatal as Norway and Kuwait have shown. What Venezuela did effectively ensured that its economy would collapse when oil prices fell. Rather than use the oil profits to stimulate other economic sectors, or invest like Norway has done with its $780+ billion sovereign wealth fund, Venezuela under the late Hugo Chavez went on a spending spree that was essentially handouts and corruption. Chavez's economic policies were also highly restrictive and harsh against privately held and foreign owned companies. Many industries were virtually completely nationalized under Chavez. Furthermore, the state itself was incompetent and corrupt leading to many state industries falling behind their privately held competitors. In the case of the Venezuelan state oil company which provides most of the exports, it was treated largely like a slush fund and welfare program employing lots of people doing nothing while watching production fall. This is a little more complex, but basically, the means of generating foreign currency to import stuff like food was reliant on the state oil firm, which generated less and less money leading to less foreign currency making it harder to import food. Partially due to Dutch Disease and the wild incompetence of the Chavez regime, domestic food production dropped because it wasn't competitive. Farmers couldn't make a living and food producers couldn't make money. Add to that rolling black outs of electricity and production literally halts. No ingredients, no power, and huge inflation makes Venezuela a bad place to do business."
],
"score": [
13,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xidt0 | If salt can be extracted from the vast amount of saltwater we have, why was salt such a high profit good throughout history? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deibd2t",
"deicd2j",
"deiahpt",
"deifhde"
],
"text": [
"A lot of inhabited land is not near the sea, and to extract salt you need to evaporate it, which requires a warm, dry environment near the coast or near a salt mine. These aren't that common, so Salt is harder to get than seems obvious. Demand also used to be larger, as it was the only real preservation method prior to refrigeration, so was used in everything. These two factors pushed supply down and demand up, making it a valuable resource.",
"Salt is in seawater, but you need to get it out in the first place. \"Getting it out\" is usually done by evaporating the water, so you are basically down to two options, both have one problem. You need a whole lot of energy to evaporate water. Now, here is what you can do: 1. You can let it evaporate it naturally. To do that, you take seawater, cut of the source of new water (the sea) and let it lie in the sun to evaporate, this takes a long time for big amounts of salt, but it can be done. Of course, if it rains in the meantime you are back at zero. For this to work you need a place that is dry for longer times and also gets a lot of sun. You can do it properly in some southern regions but you can completely forget this in, say, northern Europe. Thus, \"being able to do it\", \"doing it for a long time\" and then transporting the resulting salt all over the continent was expensive. 2. You can evaporate the water with fire. Note there was not electricity to cook the water, so you basically had to burn wood. Water, again, takes a whole lot of energy to evaporate so if you want a large scale \"salt operation\" in, say, northern europe, you burn entire forests for your salt. You must own them or buy the wood, have it transported, and burned. This obviously means you have no forest left for building, or other stuff you want to do with fire, and at one point your coastline would have no forests for miles and miles away from the coast. This option is outright stupid, the wood is too valuable to burn it for salt, and thus you cannot do it. So you are basically down for two sources of salt: First, get it from areas with sea and a lot of sun, where a lot of time and (a lot of!) work is spent to get it and then it has to get transported from whereever the \"hot area with sea access\" is. Which makes it expensive. Or you need to get it from mines, which have the same issue: First it is expensive to get it out (lots of people) and then it has to get transported from whereever the mine is.",
"First salt is an essential nutrient so every body needs it. It was also the primary method for preserving food for thousands of years. So it has a high demand. Second one of the primary methods for getting salt in the past evaporation of seawater. So if I remember correctly this involved creating a small pool if water on the beach and allowing it to evaporate in the sun. This was not a very labor intensive process so the costs were relatively low. The combination of the 2 allows for a high profit margin",
"Harvesting of sea salt in southern Europe (Malta). URL_0"
],
"score": [
22,
18,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.visitgozo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Salt-harvesting-at-Xwejni-Gozo-photo-by-Ted-Attard.jpg"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xilv4 | How can so many artists now produce incredible photorealism, when even the greatest Renaissance artists that saw that as a central aim couldn't come as close? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deicp05",
"deil901",
"deinlb5",
"deicvfd",
"deiga1u",
"deiimla",
"deiiyfo",
"deiemy0",
"deicx9c",
"deikde0",
"deicpi0",
"deice21",
"deihe7l",
"deil3bv",
"deieqf3",
"deiigpt",
"deinc4q",
"deilxka",
"deirro6",
"deikq2m",
"deiism2",
"deio3qt",
"deiv7jb",
"deioj5a",
"deinz6s",
"deijtyj",
"dein65t",
"deiq2wp",
"deipnfg"
],
"text": [
"The ability to work from a photograph (and to extrapolate the skills learned this way to drawing live models). A lot of renaissance work - particularly in portraits has the hallmarks of using a camera obscura (basically an image projected in a lightbox) which has a few issues in terms of scale (often the person's head is in focus but their shoulders aren't, also head looks giant compared to torso). Don't forget as well that painter in that time was much more of a craft than an art - painters needed to earn enough to eat and sometimes that meant fudging things to suit the vanity of the subject/comissioner which necessarily adds some distortion.",
"Modern artists can achieve photorealism because they are copying from photos. Photographs are images captured by a device. The capabilities and settings on the device determine how the image will appear - change the settings slightly and you'll get a very different image. Therefore, a photograph is not explicit reality but a version of it captured in a certain moment, under certain conditions, at a certain angle, by a certain device with certain settings (selected by a human, which is why you should reconsider photos/video as a kind of objective reality in the first place - think about this when watching the news or Youtube). Go outside and take a photo. Now look at the scene with your eye and compare it to the photo. You should be able to notice differences. Now come back an hour later and look at the same scene with your eye. At minimum the light has changed, objects might have moved, cloud cover changed, etc. Consider that creating a detailed painting takes many hours. Consider that while the artist is working, the conditions of the scene will change. Consider that when working from a photo, nothing changes. Even the conditions under which the artist views the photo itself do not change since we have the luxury of electronic artificial light. When working from a photograph, the artist is copying a vision captured by a machine; when working from reality, the image produced is built directly from the impressions of a human without the mechanical middle-man. So: which method represents reality more accurately as a *human perceives it*? Of course, the question itself only leads to more questions ;) My background: I have a degree in fine arts and prefer to paint in oils. I use photographs as a reference for anatomy, proportion, colour but build the image according to whatever imagination inspired it.",
"This will probably be burried, but here it is. I have a studio art degree from a public university with an emphasis in oils. I was in school just a few years ago. When we began our photorealism classes, the professors taught us the technique of copying pictures, detail for detail. Painting from life and painting from image, are very different. Now, I hope this captures the spirit of ELI5, because I havent studied the human eye or how image transfer works in the human brain. We see in three dimensions, right? So when we look at a real life model we see every detail of the light against that three dimensional form. But to capture all of that in a TWO dimensional form is rather difficult. So I was taught to \"cheat\" at first. By painting from a photo, technology that didnt exist during the Renaissance, my eye is now translating a two dimensional figure into another two dimensional figure. Why this is easier for the human eye, I don't know. But from experience, it's definitely much easier to paint a convincingly photorealistic image from a picture over doing it from a real life person. And in response to the comment about the paintings not necessarily looking photorealistic, and instead just looking like \"Renaissance\"...you're half right. The masters of the Renaissance respected the human form and got as close to life-like as possible. Photorealism (a term coined much later, at the turn of the century) was the holy grail. It meant more money, the more life-like the commissions became. In their minds, there was nothing better than the natural human form, nothing more beautiful, save perhaps their paintings of it. But they also glorified the human form much like the Greeks did before them. So the human figure was made to look much more lavish, much more exquisite, than it really was. (Some masters admittedly added more musculature to their sculptures and paintings than was anatomically correct.) And there were many iterations of this concept, a noteable contributer being Sir Reubens (the one that painted his ladies nice, rosy, robust, and chubby.) So yeah, it was supposed to look even more beautiful than the natural form, but photorealism was absolutely a goal.",
"It's significantly easier to copy a picture (2D to 2D) than to draw one from a real object (3D to 2D). Still difficult, but easiER. All photorealistic drawings I've seen copy a picture. Also, you're comparing paintings, in which matching the color is waaay more difficult, to black and white pencil drawings, in which your brain does the coloring.",
"I think your comparison with trompe l'oeil masterpieces is not comparing like for like really. You can't compare a pencil drawing to oil painting as the medium affects the end result and oil paint is quite a thick viscous material that does not really lend itself to fine details in the way that a pencil or ballpoint does. I also think the increase in realism over the centuries has two causes, one is that as technique improves the next \"great\" artist has to up their technique to be successful in the same way that Olympic records are broken for a more mundane example. The second change is technology and scientific discovery, as human knowledge and technology changes human perception changes too. As printing improved and photography appeared peoples perception of realism changed to match the level of detail these new techniques brought with them. For us in the modern age it is for example quite normal to think of a picture being made up of small dots or pixels but if someone were to think in that way in the 17th century would of been quite unique. On another level it is debatable if level of detail equates to quality, a high level of detail at worst is only a indication of a certain level of craftsmanship and not a automatic indication of artistic merit.",
"I would like pose another version of your question. How did sculptors create such life like images from marble and other stone yet various paintings did not compete? I understand as other have said that the technology for fine point pens vs oil painting is different enough to not portray as good of details. I don't see exactly how that isn't the same for sculpting.",
"Very simple answer. In Renaissance, there were no photographs. Its rather easier to make a photorealistic painting if a) you have a photo b) you painting it with tablet and touchpen. Also they didnt actually want photorealistic paintings cause a) they didnt know what that means b) portraits and other stuff was ordered usually to be nice, not true to reality. And as far as colors go, some of more recent artists were better than photos.. (early Monet stuff for example). **TL:DR Most photorealistic things are based on a actual photos. That wasnt a thing in Renaissance. It makes creating them far easier.**",
"Another point is that photorealistic art looks like a photo; we modern people assume a photo is what the thing really looks like. That is a learned response. Yes, photos can be a very accurate representation of a person, but only at an instant in time, and in a particular light, and seen through a lens with a particular focal length. It doesn't completely capture the experience of being in the presence of a living, breathing, moving person.",
"A person will never sit still for days for the artist to be able to paint him/her correctly. Photos have changed things. You can now look up the subject of your art for every detail for as long as you want.",
"I'd point out that many photorealistic paintings, like those by Chuck Close, are gigantic and are only photorealistic when viewed from a distance or in print whereas the Mona Lisa is on a pretty small 30\"x21\" canvas. URL_0",
"I think it's mainly because the new ones already have a 2D model (from a picture) while back then, they had to use 3D models (real people). Also, cumulative knowledge on perspective and such.",
"You mention simple materials, I would imagine years of development would change how the materials are made and have probably improved the quality of the materials to allow a much more realistic drawing. Another factor might be how easy it is to access and share knowledge. You might be naturally a great artist, but it must be a lot easier now to learn new techniques in a short space of time than it was back then which likely used to take many years to master.",
"Every artform, skill and technology advances massively over time. If we sent Magnus Carlsen or Floyd Mayweather back in time there is nobody that could defeat them. And it applies to every sport and every dicipline of everything and anything. Some skills have been lost to time of course, but any skill that still lives has evolved to be better today than ever before.",
"You do the best you can with the tools and knowledge you have. The Renaissance artists were great because their works were leaps and bounds ahead of those who came before them. They didn't have computers, perfectly categorized pigments, or micro-millimeter paintbrushes to work with, but incredibly crude tools that required an unbelievably fine touch to work with. A good analogy would be a medical genius trying to do brain surgery with a butter knife. It's not that modern artists are better or more talented, but they have better tools and more cumulative knowledge than those who came before them. It's actually one of the coolest things about human development of *everything* over history: we're just going to get better and better at what we're doing.",
"The artists creating photorealistic art in the 18-19th century actually had access to semi advanced camera like devices that allowed them to project right onto the canvas. [Heres a great documentary about this]( URL_0 )",
"I believe it was also a 'thing' for artists to follow a certain style of depiction that was popular at the time, be it traditional or modern. I remember learning in my art history class that a piece like Siena's Maesta was painted that way not because they couldn't achieve realism, but because it was traditionally 'correct' to depict the Madonna, Christ Child, and Saints that way.",
"**short answer:** At the time of the Renaissance in Italy, someone could feed themselves by painting pictures. So you better paint some awesome pictures. However making paintings is both a skill and a technology. Skills and technology can be forgotten and lost if enough people don't use them enough. **to continue on:** A thousand years before the Renaissance, there were people who could make and use those tools very very well. The Romans. However their civilization fell apart and that knowledge was lost - those skills no longer fed you. Eventually a new civilization emerged and people began to use those tools again and use those skills again and refine the tools and refine their skills It is a pretty cool because two of those guys who were using those skills and tools, Brunelleschi and Donatello, went to the ruins of Rome and rediscovered great works of art. They reverse engineered lost techniques, skills and tools to help make what we call the Renaissance. It is interesting to see how in the history of art, you see it go from primitive/simplified to realistic to simplified to realistic. Given enough time of continual development, it even went abstract and beyond. **To address realism specifically**, Hellenist (Ancient Greek) sculpture is strikingly realistic. Even cooler... hundreds of years later, the Romans found it fashionable to portray the \"Realistic\" image of people - warts, scars and all. So yeah, the Renaissance was a time when a stable and wealthy culture arose and there happened to be enough intelligent and curious people to use their knowledge of craft (Brunelleschi was a silversmith) and to be paid well enough (Lorenzo De Medici has been called the father of the Renaissance and all he did was pay for most of it) to pursue their craft to such a degree that it developed into the art we know of today. All of that development boils down to the fact that were enough resources to allow for this technological development.",
"imo none of these answers are actually addressing OP's concern. You don't always need a photograph in order to paint realism per se. You paint what you see. Why weren't most artists during the Renaissance doing this, or at least painting from memory?",
"When I was 20 I took my first college drawing class. I was amazed at how awesome I was because our early assignments were to take photos and copy them, and I worked hard and did pretty damned well! I was probably in the top couple of my class. Hot shit. Fast forward to the \"real\" drawing classes. 10 minute figure drawing poses in charcoal. Good god did I suck. It took years of life drawing, sometimes 3 hours/day x 5 days a week, and several different teachers and dozens of books, before I would be able to produce anything worth looking at, and anyone with an untrained eye would still prefer the photographic copies of my early days. The reality is that copying from photographs is a much simpler process than observing from reality. The fundamentals of drawing/painting (gesture, form, light, etc etc) simply aren't required to copy from a photograph, although the two aren't mutually exclusive.",
"In short, because the great artists of today have learned from the great artists of the last generation and they learnt from the great artists of the previous generation and so on. I recently read a great book this discussed this, amongst other things. Civilisation is built on the work of previous discoveries. Someone today gets to learn everything that previous generations didn't know and they get to use technology that previous generations didn't have. They might spend their whole live working or training and discover a better way of doing things which in turn they can teach to younger people who'll take that and everything else and repeat the cycle. The book was Bounce by Matthew Syed. A great example of this is athletics. If you go back and look at the records for say the marathon over the years it's got quicker and quicker so much so that a world record time 100 years ago would be considered a good time for an average runner. We know humans haven't evolved over such a short time, nor is equipment so different, so what happened? Training got better. Over the years we learnt more and more about training methods and nutrition. The stuff elite athletes were doing filtered down and we all improved and then the elite athletes had to find a new way to get ahead.",
"Because nobody had a clue what a true photographic images looked like until the invention of the camera.",
"Eyeglasses. While eyeglasses are known to exist as early as the 1200's they were very expensive. The invention of the printing press in 1452 and the growing availability of books encouraged the production of inexpensive eyeglasses, but they were still costly. Not everyone who became a painter had perfect vision, nor did their patrons. Heck, just ask around the people you know, see who's got contacts. There were many people who couldn't recognize someone standing half an acre away. This set the bar for realism very low.",
"One thing that a lot of people are missing is a lot of the technology has improved. We can make better pigments in more colors than ever before. We are better at making what holds the pigments together. We can choose the viscosity we want from our paints with incredible ease. We are better at putting those pigments in containers. A renaissance painter for example had to use an animal bladder to hold the paints that they hand made themselves. If they wanted to put paint on a pallet they had to cut a hole in the bladder and squeeze out the paint. Than they had to seal the hole using glue and a patch. They had to do this to keep their paint fresh and the color strong. Today we have aluminum tubes that we can simply squeeze paint out of. This saves the artist time and gives them the ability to quickly choose between the tons of new pigments we have created. We have a better tools for applying paint. Not only have synthetic brushes improved to an amazing point, the average person in a developed nation can easily buy natural fiber brushes from all sorts of animals from all over the world. Additionally we have tools like airbrushes. Our pencils and pens are far better. We have better understanding of color. So while it is true that scientist Sir Isaac Newton discovered how light and color are related, it wasn't until much later that we had a deep and sophisticated understanding of how the mind and eye understand color in relationship to each other. This understanding actually came from weaving textiles, and learning how colors next to each other can make each other appear more vibrant or duller. All this together plus the invention of photography as other respondents have mentioned, simply let modern artists do things that renaissance artists couldn't even approach. Interestingly, if it wasn't for that weaving thing I mentioned, coal refinement, and aluminum paint tubes there would never have been impressionism.",
"You're making one huge, and rather wrong, assumption that photorealism was the aim of such works. Artists usually follow certain styles, and making something look life life wasn't necessarily the goal.",
"My knowledge is limited, and mostly about oil painting. I'd also encourage you to rethink the term \"quality\" -- oil paintings from 500 years ago have significant quality, independent of their anatomical accuracy. What we're really talking about is a change in style. I think a lot of people have answered this, basically it's easier to work from a photograph (steady, unchanging light source, unmoving object etc.) than it is a live object. Not to imply that photo/hyperrealist artists only work from photographs. Alyssa Monks (one of the best hyperrealist painters around) uses photographs, but rather than just copying the photograph she attempts to make the work move beyond looking like a photo... if that makes sense. What a lot of the top comments haven't mentioned is the massive developments of materials that's occurred since way back when. Oil paints were, and still are in general, quite expensive. Rather than use one colour straight on a canvas, artists would often (read: almost always) do a monotone underpainting (grisaille), and use transparent layers of different colours to build values in the painting (like rather than mixing a red and blue to get purple, you'd do a glaze of red, wait for it to dry, then a glaze of blue). Different pigments layered in different ways produce different results in the overall image. These techniques are still used today, but generally not as a monetary necessity. Working like this meant months spent on a single painting. That means that a model was sitting for an artwork for a significant amount of time, over different seasons, different times of day etc. And, obvs, they probably weren't sitting there the entire time. Which means the artist was working from memory, as well as their knowledge of anatomy, light, colour, and how they interact to produce a certain effect. In the case of producing realistic skin tones, you might also take into account the paint/varnish ageing. Some pigments aren't as lightfast as others, and become faded; others yellow with time. Varnish often becomes yellowed with age. Of course paintings are often restored and maintained nowadays, which helps combat this. **TL;DR:** * Digital technology: unchanging reference available whenever needed, don't have to rely on memory/imagination as much * electiricty: ability to paint in the same light (influences colour choices made by artist) * pigments are less expensive: techniques aren't as limited by money * more pigments available: more colours, cheaper colours * effects of age on painting: older paintings lose some of their lustre, so we don't see what they initially looked like, only the restored versions.",
"I have seen still life paintings in the Rijksmuseum that are photorealistic. Wasn't that the whole point of the art form?",
"As an aside, you'd probably be interested in watching [Tim's Vermeer.]( URL_0 ) Arguably, one of the first artists to produce \"photorealism\" well before the photograph had been invented. The full documentary attempts to recreate his method and it's super interesting.",
"Artists of past generations used to look down on photorealistic artwork. They valued style and the artist adding a their own voice to the artwork. They believed realism was lazy, anyone could copy real life but an artist gave you more than what was there. If you look at the artwork of John Singer Sargent, he started in America doing paintings that utilized realism but since the American art scene was scarce he went to study art in France. His style changed work European influence and he shied away from realism and incorporated some impressionist tones. Source: BFA Degree",
"I think the answer is photography! I´m an illustrator and I have some friends who make photoreal illustration and they use photographs as reference all the time, also, nowadays you have 3d software too, so you can for instance pose a car in perspective and paint on top of it, adding your own details and variations while knowing the perspective is correct and not have to think about it. Photoreal illustration is heavily demanded in some areas such as advertising or videogames, so with demand people start figuring out ways of doing it. I also have to say your example is not the best, see Vermeer for instance, who allegedly used lenses and optical tricks as the \"camera obscura\" to compensate for the lack of actual photographic technology and achieve his own degree of photorealism: URL_0"
],
"score": [
1828,
1537,
770,
262,
170,
164,
135,
91,
50,
28,
19,
18,
14,
14,
13,
9,
9,
7,
7,
7,
6,
5,
5,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/65/34/9c/65349c0e25ce94f6376dc8f4340e409b.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X97bhjx4EaI&feature=youtu.be&t=3s"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS_HUWs9c8c"
],
[],
[
"https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Vermeer#/media/File:Jan_Vermeer_van_Delft_011.jpg"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xiu1x | Why are some U.S States more religious than others? | It seems to me like there isn't an even spread of religious people in the U.S, with most religious people being concentrated in states that are more inland, whereas the coastal states seem to have less religious people or at least less incredibly devout religious people. I'm largely focusing on Christianity here, rather than other religions. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deiklor",
"deifccs",
"deidjlv"
],
"text": [
"Your mostly talking about southern, Bible Belt states. These states in general are poorer, and people achieve lesser levels of education. It's a general trend that wealth and education have an inverse relationship with religiosity.",
"It's because some states have a higher rural population than others. When you live in a city, everything you see (other than the sun and the moon) is man-made. Even the dogs and cats were bred by humans. You can't really see the stars at night because of light pollution and it's never really quiet. We moved from the city to the country 8 years ago and it has had a profound psychological effect on my entire family. In the country nature is everywhere you look, and it's wondrous and beautiful in ways nothing man-made ever could be. Under these circumstances we all started feeling an unfamiliar emotion. Kind of a mix of awe, love, and brotherhood. It would hit with the most intensity when out hiking and seeing something particularly beautiful. These experiences led to us feeling more \"spiritual.\" There's just no possibility of me explaining that to someone who has never felt it themselves. Feelings of spirituality led to a belief and then conviction in a higher power- God. This is rapidly turning into a tl;dr. I know 99% of all Redditors are snickering right now and saying \"dude, you should check for lead paint in your house.\" Yep, if you were the first sighted person a blind man had ever met it would be easy for him to dismiss the concept of color as a superstition you made up. So, directly answering your question here, people in rural areas are more religious because they are having a very different life experience than urbanites, and have a very different psychology as a result.",
"There's the bible belt in the south east. Can't really explain why some areas are more religious than others, but it's more than the landlocked states."
],
"score": [
7,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5xj1ma | Where does the phrase "Indian giver" come from? | It seems to me the white man did most of the "takesy-backsies" in American history. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deig34x"
],
"text": [
"The phrase dates back to the early Colonial period in present-day New England. The tribes in the area had customs involving gift exchanges, of which the Anglo colonists knew nothing. So, at a gathering an Indian might hand an Anglo a gift _expecting one in return_. When none was proffered the Indian would quite rightly say \"that's not how this works, gimme that back.\" Normal human interaction that wouldn't be out of place at a modern Christmas party. An aspect to history that I think has been lost is that at the time the Indians were the wealthy, successful, sophisticated people and the Anglos were the grubby poverty-stricken immigrants. You really should learn more about history before judging an entire race."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5xj80y | What happens when a cop pulls over a lawyer? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deii1bs",
"deigiir"
],
"text": [
"Cop here: Nothing. Lawyers don't have any legal authority over police. The traffic stop would continue as normal. Police only need reasonable suspicion to pull over a car/detain someone, and probable cause to charge (arrest/cite/etc) them. A lawyers job comes into play in the courtroom.",
"IANAL but they probably stay quiet and polite. The time to argue usually isn't with the cop it's in court."
],
"score": [
12,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xjant | How are the USA's states *actually* divided up? | I couldn't find an answer online, is it roads or fences? Or is it just a bunch of lines on a map determining who has soverignity over each state? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deihm4z",
"deih5ti",
"deih53n",
"deioh8l"
],
"text": [
"Mostly the second one. There's generally a sign on roads that cross state borders just for information, but physical barriers are rare. A handful of major highways into California have checkpoints where cars are inspected for certain kinds of plant material that may carry pests, but even then the vast bulk of the border is just an imaginary line. Most borders tend to be in rural areas, or follow natural boundaries like rivers, so there's no need for anything more. In the peculiar case of Bristol, Tennessee and Bristol, Virginia, the state border runs right through the middle of downtown, along State Street, which aside from some signs and markers looks like an ordinary street. URL_0",
"It's just a bunch of lines on a map. Though most of the more jagged lines, are caused by natural boundaries, like rivers and mountains.",
"The borders between states are just marked by signs on the road. They could be big billboards that say \"WELCOME TO PENNSYLVANIA!!\" or they could be the size of street signs that just say \"Entering West Virginia\". As far as I know, there are no fenced or walled borders around any of our states.",
"As far as I know, no states have any border fences between them. Fences would be hugely expensive to maintain, damaging to wildlife, and completely useless, since, except for maybe parolees, American citizens are completely free to move between states (the states all have reciprocity agreements whereby they all honor each others driver's licenses, and some other documents). Most of the borders are arbitrary lines, especially all those rectangular states in the West, or rivers. The actual size and shape of the states was determined a lot by the different territories jockeying for land. This is why the border between Ohio and Michigan is crooked. Ohio and Michigan were fighting over who got the port of Toledo. They even had a (tiny, pathetic) war. Ohio became a state first and got Toledo and the border was drawn at a slant to include it. Also, Michigan's border originally extended much farther down west of Ohio, so that Indiana didn't touch Lake Michigan. Indiana really, really wanted a port on the lake. So Michigan's border was moved north, and in exchange, Michigan received the Upper Peninsula. It turned out to be a pretty good deal for Michigan, since there was a lot of timber and iron up there, and it's a huge source of tourism revenue."
],
"score": [
9,
4,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Statestreet.jpg/275px-Statestreet.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5xju06 | How did the Bible come to be? | More specifically questions such as: Who decided which Books would be included? What was the process? How was it copied in the early years? Are there other Books that aren't included but were highly considered? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deilmaq",
"deilkij"
],
"text": [
"There were several meetings of the early church to define books, The Council of Nicaea published a list that contains the current books. The Council or Rome in 384 collected copies of those books and they were translated into The Latin Vulgate Bible. In 1546, at the Council of Trent, the Catholic church officially standardized on this translation, which had been mostly the standard for 1000 years.",
"It was edited and compiled from various existing texts by the council of Nicaea which ordered fifty copies of a more standardised version of existing and sometimes contradictory texts."
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5xkm8o | How do the writers of the Simpsons and other long running TV shows know if they are repeating the plots of previous episodes? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deis5ov"
],
"text": [
"Usually basic plot details aren't that noticed if they are repeated. You run a show long enough, you're going to have similar ideas creep up. What happens usually is that there's a person or group of people who have enough knowledge (they might not necessarily be at the level of the fans, but they know the show well enough) to make it where those things that obviously have happened before don't make it through."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xkpn9 | Why do people not realize how dependent their life is on oil? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deitini",
"deit61d",
"deiu30x"
],
"text": [
"Many people know, but want it to change, and believe that an abundance of oil will lead to complacency in terms of finding a replacement, at the expense of the environment, whereas lowered supply and the associated costs will encourage research and development of something much more nature friendly.",
"People don't consider things like plastics and rubber. Or how we use oil in so many more ways than just vehicles.",
"You know what we're even more dependent on than oil? The environment. Which climate change is destroying at an accelerating rate. At least in part due to burning oil. We can survive without oil. We can't survive without fish and trees."
],
"score": [
7,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xl43i | Why are so many US veterans homeless? Why are they in this position or how did they get to this point (generally speaking) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deix5pi",
"dej0hvr",
"deiy4d5",
"dej3ouw",
"dej0mtz",
"dejbb55",
"dej0dss",
"deiypnn",
"deizube",
"dej1wtl",
"dejbqyw",
"dej7pmd",
"dejckjf",
"dej0yjz",
"dejdd1m",
"dej0fzd",
"deix1zl",
"dej3qxe",
"dejavca",
"dej4xqs",
"dejd3r5",
"dej06b4",
"dejdbwp",
"dejc1j0",
"dejfi46",
"deiy3dc",
"deje2iy",
"dej6ezi",
"dejexh1",
"dejaiqo",
"dejcg0m",
"dej0m27",
"dejbyy1",
"dejc7gd",
"dejf59n",
"dejeo00",
"dejbk54",
"dejbo5q",
"dejczbz",
"dejhzuw",
"deiz491",
"deje3fq",
"dejeu59"
],
"text": [
"There are problems with PTSD and substance abuse that result from being in active war zones. There's the problem that military certifications aren't always transferrable to non-military jobs. So an army paramedic can't just become an ambulance driver. They have to go through redundant training (time and money) to be \"qualified\" to do the job they already do. The VA in too many places aren't staffed or funded or managed well enough to be able to help people in a timely manner. It's always a big campaign issue that's never really solved.",
"Honestly, certification. When I was in, I maintained servers, worked on equipment worth billions in operations and in support of the entire Pacific Rim. I was a system administrator as well and could debug accounts as well as work on the circuits to connect two persons on a line through multitudes of different cryptographic and plain systems - from the highest of Classifications to Unclass bullshit. None of that is transferable. They all want college degrees or certs from COMP-TIA. Don't have it? It doesn't matter what the fuck that training paper says you can do when you get out. I went from that straight to unemployment while looking for any civilian job. If I wasn't charismatic and able to talk my way into work when I really need to, I'd be homeless as well. Now I Scuba Dive. I went from facilitating international rendezvous over secure circuits and globally administrative duties... to working at a tattoo shop, then an arcade, now Scuba Diving and doing college. None of your skills are marketable. Nobody gives a shit. They tried to remedy this with TAPS - when you get out they make you take a class for resume writing. Guess what? No civilian certs? You have a really long piece of toilet paper unless you want to go back into government work.",
"Lots of reasons: PTSD ain't no picknick. Some people signed up because they had no other option, turns out service didn't change that. Contrary to popular imagination, most skills learned in the military aren't valuable in civilian life. Polishing your boots, shooting a gun, and taking orders isn't valuable in a society where everyone wears sneakers, settles differences peacefully, and are free to make own decisions. Maybe you're lucky and learn to drive a truck or run a warehouse, but if you don't you're out of luck. After service you're in much the same situation as before, except you're older and have some bad memories. If you didn't have your life together then, odds are you don't have it now, either.",
"Like everyone is saying, all the amazing shit you did in the military doesn't count towards anything in a civilian job unless you can express it on a resume properly, and lots of vets can't. Here's a couple pro-tips for vets. Have you ever signed for anything (of course you have) then you \"successfully managed and maintained equipment valued at (whatever cost...HMMWVs are about a quarter million bucks BTW)\" Ever had to teach a class (you probably did) then you've \"successfully trained and prepared x number of personnel\" Ever lead a detail or held a leadership position? Then you \"supervised x number of employees\" Shit like that. I put all this crap on my resume and got a job before my terminal leave was even over so I think I'm decent at spinning the army crap into relateable BS. Then when you get the job work your ass off, civilians are fucking lazy and everyone is used to that so if you actually fucking work you're automatically in the top percentage of quality employees Edit: if anyone wants, inbox me and I'll help you spin your military shit into something real too And another pro-tip for like everyone...print your resume on different color paper. Like a subtle difference than plain white, nothing crazy but when there's a stack and the guy sees one that's slightly more blue or whatever he might pull it out first.. which is good Edit. . . again: Rip my inbox.",
"Vet checking in. Combat MOS for those wondering. Many of these comments are somewhat right, but a big piece of the puzzle is missing. Yes, PTSD sucks ass, but most of us manage/channel/and/or don't have it. Most vets haven't seen combat, contrary to some of these posts. The worst a lot of people have seen/heard is a mortar impact. The training, while getting better (IMHO. I received a lot of \"life experience credits\" for a Bachelor's coming from a combat MOS), still has a lot of catching up to do as pointed out. It is *extremely* hard to adjust to civ life after being in for some people, especially after multiple tours overseas. This is where I believe the missing piece is. Institutionalization. Having such routine, discipline, and structure attached to everything is difficult to part from. Going from that to being able to grow your freedom beard (or, should I say \"allowed\" to emphasize the point) is kind of mind blowing. Purpose and duty to mundane and boring AF is a brutal change.",
"The Dark Side no one is talking about? Some of them joined right out of High School and have never had to: manage their own money, rent an apartment, decide what to do next, find friends or a support network. Think about all the things that are on a military base. Stores, doctors, barbers, the mess hall, barracks. It doesn't occur to many servicemen all the things they'll have to look after themselves. Some people have compared it to getting out of prison.",
"Man there is some bullshit up in here. First - we don't know those claiming to be homeless are actual Veterans. We do know the country currently has a hard on for Veterans and so it's a pretty good strategy if you're homeless. Second - the FUCKING vast majority of Veterans do not and did not serve in or near combat. It takes a ridiculous amount of support personnel to wage a war today. Most who serve do so in that capacity. Third - an all voluntary force seems great on paper but what you actually get are a ton kids from poor communities with terrible education, family histories of substance abuse, and all the other crap that comes with poverty (including health issues both mental and medical). These kids sign up before issues start to manifest and then get out and are faced with the same limited options they had before but now they've got a big spotlight pointing on them and \"Veteran\" issues. This is actually a poor issue and the class division in this country. Fourth, many, many chronically homeless, including Veterans, have serious mental illness (bipolar, major/treatment resistant depression, schizophrenia) and should NEVER have been inducted. Period. Having an SMI makes it very difficult to function in a society and maintain the things that keep you \"homed.\" Additionally and compounding the mental health issue - if your service branch starts to notice you exhibiting signs of a mental illness (which should have been screened for before you were inducted but wasn't) they will do everything to force you out with an Other Than Honorable Discharge - VA isn't currently authorized by congress to treat OTH Veterans though the new Secretary is working hard to get OTH Veterans (currently about 550k in the US) access to VA mental health care. So why are there a lot of homeless Veterans? All voluntary forces tend to suck up the desperate and serious mental illness and other mental health/substance abuse issues are automatic disqualifiers but frequently \"missed.\"",
"Beyond the mental and medical issues veterans face, most military career fields have little to no documentation that the public or private sector accepts that the individual has the training and can do the job they are applying for. Have been on the receiving end of this since i got out in mid 90's. Did a hitch in Air Force as avionics maintainer- and was told i needed to go back to school for four more years at cost of 80-90 thousand per and also pay for the Airframe and Powerplant Licence before i could touch an aircraft.Did second hitch in the Army as Combat Engineer/Diesel and Construction Maintainer- as was told the same crap upon exit even though i SPECIALIZED in construction equipment(CAT) i \"didn't know SH*T\" and would cost top much to train- pay my own way- and NO GI Bill wouldn't cover it all- so no good job- no schooling - GI Bill wasted- and here i sit doing what work i'm \"qualified\" for..... plumbing manufacturing- got my training records- cost Uncle Sam 800,000 plus for all that training- and i pull down less than 30k a year. Just think of what most combat vets learned- without a skill usable in civilian left , the leadership they learned is not wanted or appreciated by most employers.",
"Well the simple answer may surprise you. They aren't. Veterans are only slightly over represented in the homeless population. 7.3% of Americans are classified as Veterans, and Veterans comprise 8% of the homeless population. However, even that doesn't tell the whole story. Given the preponderance of the military in drawing members from backgrounds of lower socioeconomic status, the rate of homelessness among Veterans may actually be lower than the general population.",
"As someone who had a best friend who served in Afghanistan, I will give you my take on it. A lot of soldiers that end up joining are lower income people looking to better their lives but what comes with poverty is tons of issues. People who are impoverished have higher percentages to have criminal records, lower education, high chances of substance/alcohol abuse, and untreated mental disorders. Once an individual serves the above problems are likely to be exasperated. Once an individual leaves the army, they are more likely to suffer substance/alcohol abuse, mental disorders (PTSD, etc), and finally are untrained for the civilian workforce. So once they leave they get double dose of all these issues. One things that the military does in the US is scout for recruits in impoverished areas. Think rural communities and inner cities. It also doesn't help things that juveniles are sometimes given the option to join the army or go to jail. I still remember the recruiters coming into my tiny rural high school promising thousands of dollars for signing up. This leads to a large number of individuals who are dirt poor to enlist. My friend and I no longer talk because once he came back he fell into the same merry-go-round he was in before he left. Last I heard he was running a lab somewhere in our home town homeless. Edit: One last thing I forgot to mention. Most of the military is made out of people who are in poverty. Once you get up into the officer ranks this is no longer true. To be an officer you have to have a college education. People who become officers are less likely to come from impoverished households. Officers by the way are less likely to see combat. They are considered to important to loose. The ones that will always see combat are your grunts who are typically with out a college education and are likely to come from impoverished households. This has been a huge issue for the army for a long time. Vietnam is a good example of this sort of thing. During the draft, for instance, they were more likely to draft people who were impoverished. This led to protests which then created the lottery type draft where nearly every male was eligible regardless of occupation or whether or not you were in college. With this lottery it helped America eventually end the draft.",
"Combat troop, academic, non-profit manager weighing in. Many factors, including many of what's above. One huge variable being left out - childhood. Many vets were considered at risk as youth, were of lower income households and were exposed to traumatic circumstances before they joined the service. Many of these variables are correlated with unhealthy coping mechanisms, addictive behavior and dysfunctional views of self and environment. NOW pile on all the other stressors of combat, PTSD, TBI, physical injury, separation and you get chronic homelessness, suicide, substance abuse and unemployment. But that's not the end of the story. MANY MANY veterans facing these challenges live healthy and balanced lives. The difference? The opportunity to continue their service here at home by exercising values and skills, endorsement by the community by doing so and access to resources/treatment and other vets. When these dynamics come together we see posttraumatic stress turn to posttraumatic growth. When ptg occurs, it provides fuel to the society as a whole. We call this inspiration. What you can do - do more than say thanks. Ask for a story and listen. Ask a vet something they learned. Remind them we still need them. Keep in mind many homeless individuals choose to be homeless. But many don't so practice this with everyone. Clinical observation shows the key to posttraumatic growth is compassion, purpose and community. Source: was homeless combat vet, now have graduate degree in social work, work with homeless vets and married with kids and a golden retriever. All because someone reminded me I was still needed.",
"There's also a bit of a correlation/causation problem happening, I fear. When I was in the military, I saw quite a few people leave before their time was up: coping problems, drug or alcohol issues, many things. Each of these people who wasn't making it one way or another is able to be called a \"veteran\", even if they were shipped away in the middle of basic training. Frankly, many of us had enlisted because we were in need of the kind of path that was available via the military: training, food, shelter, education, feeling like you were getting your shit together -- all good if you're a bit adrift (as I was). But some adrift people don't stop being adrift. The military may well have been their last shot at being able to \"adult,\" with the alternative leading to homelessness. So, aside from PTSD-type issues that arise from military service, for others it may be that time in the military is not indicative of anything other than one last try before falling through society's cracks.",
"Wow, finally a topic I feel I can honestly contribute to. I have worked with many homeless Vets, and have done volunteer work for years. As a few posters have said, PTSD plays a huge part in this issue, but a main factor that most people don't think of if the fact that most soldiers go in as basically children. Yes, 18 is legally an adult, but try having a conversation with an 18 year old. Ask them about a mortgage payment or what to do if they get into a failed relationship. So ELI5, we give children a fair amount of money, teach them how to thrive in a very regimented and special environment, with emphasis on only operating as a group or unit, let them loose in the world solo and expect them to make mature, rational decisions. Some people can, some can't. People mention drug and alcohol abuse, but are confusing cause and effect. Man starts drinking because things are hard, things don't get hard because of drinking. - disclaimer - Individuals are all different and this is by no means a catch all, just something that is vastly overlooked when discussing the issues of veteran homelessness.",
"A lot of people are citing the combat illness. There are other factors. While the overwhelming majority go on to be successful in their lives, others are chasing the successes they may have had while serving. There is a comradery you get with others that you serve with. Its not just a job... It's a life style. Often times when 'Home' you could still spend upwards of 100 hours or more a week at work. There is a constant push for training, operations, and work while on the job so there is often not a whole lot of down time depending on what branch of service you signed up for. While deployed an average work week could be longer but off time is spent with the same people you were at work with and everyone is on edge after a few months in theater. This situation where you are constantly busy really leaves no room for quality down time. Most people handle it just fine and go on to be successful but there are some that get burnt out by the strenuous and rigorous life style. Some go on to a civilian life style after a successful military career and fail horribly because they aren't constantly pressured. These guys needed the timelines to be crunched and have a feeling of their new life is not meaningful. Depression can come from many directions and when you were a part of a group that had tight deadlines where lives were on the line constantly, going to a non military career could seem pointless.",
"The Army culture just fucks with your head. The worst part is that you don't realize it until it's sunk it's claws deep down in your brain and it's got you. Soldier's don't go and seek care for injuries or illnesses because they don't want to be thought of as malingerers or \"shit bags\" by their comrades or ESPECIALLY the NCOs in the unit because god help you if you get on the bad side of one NCO because now you are a shit bird and every NCO now thinks it. It just builds this dystopian reality in your brain and then in 2 or 4 or 6 years or whenever your contract is up, you don't re-enlist because you're like \"this fucking blows, why would I keep doing it?\" Then they stamp your forms and out the door you go and then you realize, \"HFS. I have NO IDEA where to go from here.\" I suppose I could go to college or go to work at my friends garage but the fucked up thing is that, a lot of times, you miss the Army. Stockholm syndrome is where a captive comes to have affection for their kidnapper and I swear it's just like that. Whether you write guidance software for Boeing or sweep a floor at Chipotle, you miss you captivity and it is like a fucking ball and chain around your ankle.",
"As a 10 year veteran, the majority is because they are lazy fucks. There are hundreds, if not thousands of programs just for veterans. An intelligent soldier would take advantage of schooling while in the service and get a degree while in and save money to be prepared to transition back to civilian life. I was medically retired and after my last knee surgery I paid off all my debts with my tax refund and saved over $500 a month. In less than a year I had over $8,000 saved in my bank account thanks to knowing what possibilities were laid ahead of me. I took finance classes and resume writing classes. It is a requirement now for 18 months prior to a soldiers ETS date, for them to enroll and go through the program called ACAP. ACAP goes over and teaches soldier how to be civilians. At ACAP soldiers are required to wear civilian clothing, NOT the ACU uniform. It goes over how to excel at doing interviews, writing resumes, using excel spreadsheets, the list of skills taught and programs that are available is long. Even during out processing the amount of briefs that a soldier is required to do in order to get out is numerous. There are VA briefings, ETS briefings, abc-xyz briefings... It takes about 1-2 months to out process the Army, if not more than that for some. If someone leaves the Army, and winds up homeless, then the is on them and nobody else. The resources are there and a smart budget will go a long way. There is no reason for a vet to be on the streets unless they want to be there.",
"I'd think that most of our veterans are taken care of. MOST. I'd also wonder why some aren't. What we want to do is not have any veterans.",
"Vet here. I agree with previous posters - I had to go back to school to get a degree to get a decent paying job. Saw a guy a few weeks ago that was a army vet and he was in charge of a hospital and my boss just laughed because he had no degree - we finally figured out he was army and then his resume made more sense...we still couldn't hire him because he had no degree and didn't meet the minimum qualifications because of it. Some of the military MOS's need to give people equivalent civilian certs so even though the military has its own they are valid certs when people get out - like a corpsman shouldn't have to go to nursing school when they get out, same for IT professionals, maintenance, etc. If it's the same work, give people something besides toilet paper and a career set back for their service.",
"I worked as Homeless Coordinator for the VA (granted in a fairly rural state), so I can provide a civilian insiders perspective-- for post OEF/OIF/OND vets, the biggest issue, imo, is exactly what /u/shottylaw states [here]( URL_0 ). Institutionalization. A lot of people enter the military are seeking structure, and when they leave, they find the *structure* they received isn't transferable. It's not the transferable certification that is the issue in and of itself. The problem becomes when veterans are unable to sell their certifications to civilian employers. But it's hard to get transitioning military members to see the value in learning the civvy language prior to leaving the military. Still a massive failure by the VA, imo, though. For the older guys (pre-OEF/OIF/OND vets) PTSD always seemed to be the biggest issue for homeless veterans. Those dudes got fucked and were largely abandoned by society, and, in return, rejected society themselves. Most of the older vets I met, there was no hope in getting them housing because they don't want it.",
"Along with the other reasons already mentioned, I just thought I would add my $0.02. Perspective is everything. While there are plenty of veterans who served honorably and successfully returned to civilian life, there are those who are predisposed towards serving something greater than themselves and tend to have the hardest time re-adapting to civilian life. Military life rewards selfless service and promotes living by a code of honor, while civilian life rewards self serving, greed based capitalism that goes so far as to use the very principles of honor based codes against those who live by them. These two systems are diametrically opposed to each other, even though they aren't mutually exclusive. Some veterans who struggle enough will study the nature of these systems through philosophy and other social sciences. Once they come to realize the truth of this dichotomy, they are either able to adapt and overcome it or they are not. Those who either choose not to adapt, or simply can not adapt, fall by the wayside as there simply isn't any program that fills the crack in this perspective problem. All gave some. Some gave all. Old soldiers never die, they just fade away...",
"Most people in this country are one or two bad circumstances away from being homeless. Veterans are a particularly high risk population for several reasons. For one, they have higher rates of PTSD, which can be so debilitating that they can't attain or keep meaningful work. Substances abuse is also common, and creates professional and personal issues that can cause them to become unemployed or kicked out of their home. Some simply lose their jobs for any number of reasons and either have no savings, or their savings is quickly depleted due to co-occurring crises. Simply put, they have more problems on average, boiling down mostly to mental illness, financial strife, physical health issues, and substance abuse, and are either too proud to seek help, or lack adequate support from their families and community. Fun fact that might make you feel better about the situation: in 2010, the Obama Administration set the goal to \"end homelessness\" by taking a unique approach to several major target populations: vetetans, chronically homeless, youth & families, and \"other.\" Instead of the traditional approach of \"let's fix all your problems and then get you into housing,\" which is extremely expensive on the city and very time consuming, they use a \"Housing First\" model. This basically says, let's get you in a house, and THEN worry about everything else. It's shown to be faster, cheaper, and more effective than previous approaches because it allows a person to get out of \"crisis mode\" so that they can actually focus on their other issues aside from their homelessness and achieve true stability. This method is so effective, that we actually \"ended\" veteran homelessness in 2016. This isn't to say that we no longer have homeless vets, but we HAVE reached what's called \"functional zero.\" In my city alone we have something like 50 new homeless vets every month. But we now have the ability to house every single veteran that seeks homelessness services within 90 days of entry into the program (called SSVF), regardless of their circumstances. The actual number of homeless vets in the country on a daily basis has also gone down 47% since 2010. Edited to add another HUGE reason: lack of transferable skills from the military/no civilian job training.",
"Because the U.S. doesn't care about its people, and people who come back with PTSD from war can't cope with life anymore.",
"You can't just be trained to kill other people and do it with no hesitation, and then be expected to fit in perfectly with everyone else. This is a major part, but not the only reason why.",
"Correlation does not prove causation. Shark attacks happen more frequently when ice cream sales are highest, but that does not mean one causes the other. Shark attacks and ice cream sales both increase as the weather gets hotter. Growing up poor makes you much more likely to end up homeless, and it makes you much more likely to join the military. Poor people join the military more frequently. If you're poor but young and able bodied you can join the military for the most part. Three meals and a bed to sleep in, after a few years you're earning a decent pay check. You get health care for yourself and your dependents, and there's a lot of people who find your job honorable. This sounds like paradise to someone who is poor. But the military isn't for everyone. Some of these poor people who joined just aren't suited for the military, so they stay in for 4 years or 6 or whatever. The pay isn't great those first couple years, and if they never had a dime to spend in their lives and then at 18 they start getting paychecks, they might not spend it wisely. They probably won't really. So they leave the military at 22 or 24, after spending 4 or 6 years completely committed to a job they hated, still essentially the same poor kid who enlisted at 18, except now they're a veteran. So they're flat broke, estranged from friends and family for 4 to 6 years or whatever, with job skills that don't translate to anything they actually want to do in life. If they go back to their home town, half their friends moved to the city for college or work, the other half have settled down and started families. They don't want to move into mom's spare bedroom for the same reasons they joined the military in the first place. If you are poor and join the military and don't like it and get out ASAP, you are going to be poor when you get out. And poor people tend to end up homeless. Not everyone who joins the military is poor, but if you're poor, if you have no opportunities, if you're the type of person who is likely to end up homeless, the military is an extraordinarily attractive option and you might not know if you can stand it or not until you try it. So you ask a bunch of homeless people if they served in the military you'll see a bunch of hands go up. It's one of the things they tried that didn't work. Homeless people don't just move from their parent's house to a cardboard box, they try things and those things don't work out. The other responses about PTSD and mental illness and all that are correct also, but they're missing a piece.",
"4 years enlisted Marine Corps/ 2 years in school, I do not think mental issues are always the case either. A lot of military personnel are not exposed to the dramatic combat, but the military lifestyle in general has some after effects. A lot of military members are sort of confused as to what to do after they exit the military. And its not all the military's fault. They try to get you to have a plan but when it comes down to it the military lifestyle prevents you from planning such things. I think another thing that is overlooked is when your in the military they basically take everything you have and teach you to live out of a pack, basically homeless. Former military personnel have a lot higher tolerance for such things, as in they are taught to not be objective. I have often thought about what it would be like if I ended up homeless and it wouldn't really bother me. I would get a nice sleeping system, find a place to maintain hygiene and get enough money for food and just do my thing. I think that can be true of a lot of veterans, the idea of being homeless does not really scare them. The biggest contributor to it, BIGGEST...people do not care. Seriously, most civilians do not give a shit, they really do not. That is why you have such fierce loyalty among the veterans and their branch, because we take care of each other...we are all we have. The population is basically brainwashed into \"thank you for your service\". Its annoying. I really don't want to be thanked, because its just a parrot and you have no idea what you are thanking me for anyway. You want to thank a vet, buy them a beer or just shoot the shit with them. Ask what they did and if they enjoyed it, or how their day is going, stop parroting thank you. Everyone \"almost\" joined, we get it, you do not have to be a tied to the military to earn our respect. If you're one of the people that thinks its stupid to thank military, that is fine too! We don't need it. I'm currently going to school to be a Mechanical Engineer, I am 26. My four years in the military and all my accomplishments are about 3 lines on my resume. I had to rewrite it because honestly companies do not give a fuck. I went to the career fair, spoke to 20ish companies...no interviews. I had an excellent GPA, good speaking ability, relevant experience, but not the extra curricular they recognized. In this current market, being a part of an after-school club holds more weight than a squad leader in the United States Marine Corps. Kids that were in fraternities, freshmen, got 4+ interviews based on their connections. People just do not care, I have since started doing the clubs after school, rewrote my resume based on that, basically removed the majority of my military experience and got 3+ interviews at the most recent career fair; with a lower GPA. I get that people do not give a shit now, I adapted, some people haven't and end up not being successful. Military skills are not marketable to companies, lets be honest a decent amount of people do not have a lot of options outside the military. That is not a bad thing, but some people exit the service and get stuck. The GI Bill is GOLD. They will pay for 4 years of college, not like help you through it, like you can go to a great school (not ivy league obviously) and they pay for you. Tuition, books, food, rent. I mean you won't be living like a rockstar, you have to be smart with money but its such an amazing deal. A lot of vets do not take advantage of it. Spend 4 years in the suck and then have to go do math with a bunch of kids...not exactly appealing. When I was discharged I needed to relearn math. Get up at 4:30 to go workout, work 7:30-5, study 6-7:30/8 go to bed. All that just so I had the ability to be successful my freshmen year. Basically back to square one at 24, a lot of vets have a hard time starting over like that and then all it takes is time for it to fall apart. That is just for average case veterans, not the ones with hardcore PTSD, loss of limb, or the rampant substance abuse. So add that into it and its no surprise honestly. We just do not have enough man power or money or knowledge to fix the problem. Just my two cents.",
"My guess is primarily because many military occupations don't translate well to civilian opportunities.",
"As mentioned by others there are plenty of reasons; but it all boils down to one fact; the american dream failed. Being awesome all the time just wasn't sustainable, and with a military industrial complex that employs nearly 40% of the American populace, when America isn't in a war, people start losing their jobs and defaulting on their mortgages. So America keeps finding reasons to \"fuck yeah!\" all over the globe. Those who actually make it home are promised riches and bitches, but then... who's going to pay for it? So it doesn't happen. With no sellable qualities in the civilian market, and probably some stress-related illness, maybe an addiction or two... you see where this is going? Even their own families don't want them around and with no one to provide for them, they end up on the street And for what? Well for freedom, of course, and little Johnny down the street, and warm apple pie And they call it democracy",
"As part of why vets end up homeless we have to also include the policies that put them in this situation. Wars became unpopular as long as we had a draft. The Vietnam War put an end to the draft and each president since has privatized it and based it on a volunteer and privatized mercenary army. As a result war is now a profit center that processes impoverished rural and inner city kids who volunteer because they think its going to improve their lives. The harsh reality is that this relieves the rest of society of any sacrifice or responsibility for our wars while it profits from it. Due to the lack of personal involvement we rally behind our government's use of Authorizations For Use of Military Force without formally declaring war. As a small portion of the population, these kids became the sacrificial cows of a modern society. Add to it the highly profitable and shabby nation building mission creep, and the automation of war with drones and the like that further insolate us from our involvement and responsibilities. Just like the shabby built nation-building infrastructure, the military gives them only enough training to do the job required in military organization structure that leaves them unprepared to compete in the civilian workforce. Once they leave the military society seems to just cast them aside as damaged goods. My father was one of those damaged goods, and despite his owning his own business, he had a drinking problem that resulted in domestic violence that would cause him to loose his business, could not keep a job and eventually ended up on welfare. His drinking and abuse eventually isolated him from his own family and he became homeless. ---- Disclaimer: I am not a vet, I never served because my father who was a WWII vet made sure I didn't have to serve when he showed up at White Hall Street while I was being processed for the draft during the Vietnam War. At the time I was trying to get in the Navy to avoid field combat and being abused by my drunken father.",
"Going to war and being under intense stress for long periods of time can really mess a person up. The military refused to acknowledge the psychological damage done to these people for a long time and didn't provide adequate care, and still don't. Add that to coming out of service with no education, and no real transferable job skills, and you have a recipe for disaster. TL;DR lot of guys suffering from stress induced disorders who don't have a degree or skills that transfer to society. That and the VA is a disgrace.",
"Has anyone mentioned the isolation that veterans experience as soon as they get out? They go from having hundreds of people in their support system to sometimes having 0. A lot of times the vet moves to an entirely different area immediately after separating. They have no support, none of the training transfers, and the veteran will also be experiencing massive stress from other areas too like marriage, children, etc. More often than not, Vets are the hardest working, most loyal and trustworthy people you can find. Unfortunately, our Government and VA are not any of those things. Please thank a Vet every chance you get",
"Vet checking in. Intel rate in the navy. I did crypto work for the navy, worked on breaking codes and actually part of my chain of command included the NSA. I got out and wanted to join the NSA or some intel agency. Nope they all wanted a degree. I was fine doing the work for them while I was in the Military, but I get out and nope. Not good enough. I ended up moving back home, got a job at a gas station. Luckily it was near NASA. One day I asked a guy if NASA needed cryptologists and he said \"funny you should ask. That's the department I manage\" Nailed the interview, worked at NASA for a few years and used it to kick off my IT career.",
"Military jobs tend to be very specialist in ways that don't translate to the real world. One of my relatives is a signals operator (radio guy) in the Canadian Army. He's done 4 major things in his 15 years in which included deployment to Afghanistan: Drive LAVs, shoot weapons, talk on radios, and \"fix\" computers (literally operating a hard drive imaging box - stick a hard drive in, press a button, take hard drive out). None of these things have a lot of real world applications and he's in a tech trade. He's getting out in a year. Trying to find a job with these qualifications isn't going to happen so he is immediately going to school when he gets out. My relative is basically spending his last year fighting the Army for compensation for all the damage he's done to his body in the time he's been in which includes a bad knee and shoulder, a messed up back, and significant hearing loss. People who don't get that compensation/medical care after they leave or don't have the ability for retraining are far less able to get a job than the average person. This is particularly bad for anyone who leaves with untreated mental issues, such as PTSD.",
"Homeless is a lay term that macarades as a technical term. How one person defines homelessness is different than another. Everyone agrees that people we see sleeping on the street are. What about those with a shelter bed (still legally homeless)?. Couch surfing with family (not legally homeless). Couch surfing with friend (sometimes homeless). Sleeping in a car (homeless). About to be evicted by landlord (not homeless until the sherif arrives). Ending homelessness is easy and simple. Provide everyone with a safe and secure place to lay their head. It's less expensive than you think. In my city of 2m+ (Philadelphia), the official nightly street homeless count is 750. Many people require stable housing before working on the causal issues that got them there. Old notions of requiring 90 days of sobriety as a condition to a housing subsidy will never solve the problem. It just results in paying social workers to be the housing police and not doing what they were trained to do - help connect people to available resources and help achieve positive outcomes. Veterans have dedicated pools of funding and in Philadelphia there was a big flashy announcement that we are at functional 0 veteran homelessness. Even the people making the claim understood that it came with many caveats. My organization (MHASP) is working on some innovative ways to use technology to help people experiencing homelessness who are resistant to accessing services to come to a center, have some immediate needs met while also being educated on what is out there to help. Upworthy just released the following video (over 1M views): URL_0",
"Rambo said it best. \"I was in charge of million dollar equipment. Out here i can't even get a job parking cars.\"",
"Because we have a government that's designed to go to war more often than it's designed to handle the negative consequences of war.",
"The use them and then throw them away mentality of our government. The powers that be could give two flying weasel shits about the troops, the only time there is concern is when it's a media opportunity otherwise no fucks are given.",
"It's because we take hard working, aspiring young men and women and put them through hell. We break them physically, mentally and emotionally. Then, when they're no more use for killing other people we fly them home, give them a pat on the back and tell them \"good luck!\"",
"No two veterans have the identical experiences. I served as an officer Stateside, and was basically a bureaucrat; others went through any number of special hells that we can scarcely imagine. The human mind is a delicate machine. Hit it too hard, and it may never work properly again.",
"I'm a vet, have worked as a university coordinator for vets, have worked at an adult homeless shelter, and I can say that the big three are: non-transferable certifications, ignorance about the civilian world, and institutionalization. Everyone hits \"the wall\" when they get out, some hit it harder than others, though...",
"Joining the military stunts personal growth. It's like being an adult with a baby sitter and not having to be as responsible for your finances, meal planning, and other things that normal young adults do who don't live in barracks. You always have someone looking out for you, and you won't always have that outside of the military. Add that to a culture that promotes alcohol abuse, driving on even if you're having legitimate problems, and the idea that you're all the toughest humans ever, even if you're not. You still have to deal with everything you experience, but most won't because it isn't taken serious at a soldier level. So you've got a 22 year old kid with zero education, a drinking problem, war horrors he probably hasn't dealt with yet, and he's being reintegrated back in to society. It's a recipe for disaster.",
"Because serving in the military and seeing active combat often causes tremendous mental and physical trauma, and because we have no \"reintroduction to society training/therapy.\" Many military members actually participate in combat situations. Being in a combat situation often means you are killing people, while other people are trying to kill you and your friends/colleagues. It is one of the most traumatic situations a human can go through. It also involves a totally different set of skills to succeed than what is sought for in a civilian job. As a result, many Vets suffer from PTSD, anxiety, and other mental health disorders, especially those who have seen active combat, although the rate is actually higher for drone operators. In addition, many suffer from feeling lost in a civilian job because what made them a good soldier does not translate to many jobs. Many vets are injured and can't perform manual labor but don't have skills for other work. In addition, due to the mental health issues, many soldiers resort to substance abuse as a way of dealing with the stress. Although most former military members readjust fairly well, a much higher percentage of them do not, compared to the overall population. Hence the disproportionate representation of vets among the homeless.",
"I can somewhat explain this situation. When I separated from the military I was only partially prepared for life on the outside. Unemployed for about 6 months and things were bad for a while. The first thing is there are a lot of people who join the military to get away from problems at home. So when they get out and return home those problems are still there and an individual has just lost a strongly developed level of support the military offers. Without close friends or family ties, things can go to shit fairly quick. Furthermore, it is very common for divorce to occur not long after leaving the military. Had this happen to many friends and it was devastating even more so when piled on with leaving the military. Second is monetary. Aside from being lucky enough to jump into overseas contracting, odds are you will never be able to match the pay and benefits you had in the military for a few years. You basically go from on top of your game to entry level and that is a serious challenge for someone used to the military. Sometimes Veterans see jobs as \"beneath\" them and decline entry level positions to hold out for jobs that are simply not available (I did this a few times). Next up, tons of military jobs do not have direct civilian equivalents. Those that do may differ significantly from the civilian side. This is even more challenging when you return home to a place far removed from any military bases. Employers may not understand the work history or be able to relate the job to experience. This doesn't even get into various medical issues, especially mental ones or PTSD for combat veterans. In short, no money, no family support, no job, removal from close friends and such all adds up to a pretty bad day. Honestly, all of this is not much different from why many homeless people end up being in such a position.",
"Late to the party. Strictly speaking from my (possibly special-pleading) personal experience, homelessness is way more complicated than \"do I have enough money/income to keep a roof over my head?\" although obviously that is probably the prime factor in many cases. For me, when I left Walter Reed Army Medical Center after a 16-month stay subsequent to my \"I participated!\" experience in Iraq, I kinda knew I was still not all there upstairs, even though I had gotten a lot of very good MH treatment and been handed a paper attesting that I was competent to make my own legal, medical, and financial decisions. Well, maybe I was, but that's not really saying much. Thing is, I had enough revenue coming in (mainly VA disability) that I could have paid the rent on a hole-in-the-wall somewhere and kept food on the table and the lights turned on. We're not talking Park Avenue, but a roof and food, yeah. I was in no place to manage even the modest responsibilities that would have entailed. Maybe by setting up auto-pays through my bank's online bill-pay service, maybe the rent and all the separate utilities and all that would have gotten paid every month, but this was a long time ago and that service was still pretty new. Most people weren't really doing that yet. So I had the money. And at the time (and to this day), I was under the impression that I simply didn't have enough marbles in my head to rent a place of my own and keep my shit together, much less resume custody of my school-age daughter and be a single parent without neglecting her or otherwise being a hazard to her well-being. About a year later, I did feel I had recovered my faculties to where I could do all those things, so I did, and everything turned out fine. But during that year, I was homeless and couch-surfing or sleeping in my vehicle because *I couldn't cope* with managing my own place or burdening my family by asking them to put me up (of course they would have) while I tried to pull myself together. No idea where I'm going with this. Maybe that sheds a little light on one way such a story can unfold. Some people whose heads are in a place like that never do pull out of it."
],
"score": [
3951,
888,
382,
287,
249,
229,
174,
139,
112,
43,
18,
15,
13,
12,
9,
8,
7,
7,
7,
7,
7,
6,
6,
6,
6,
5,
5,
5,
4,
4,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5xl43i/eli5_why_are_so_many_us_veterans_homeless_why_are/dej0mtz/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.upworthy.com/when-someone-on-the-street-asks-you-for-money-whats-your-answer-this-app-can-help"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xlips | Why in the military do some people get the best medical care in the country at places like Walter Reed while other military personnel and veterans get awful horrible care at VA hospitals? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dej0rcg",
"dej1ufx",
"dej1jri"
],
"text": [
"A lot has to do with where and when your injured. Active duty and in combat: If it's sever enough you'll go to Walter Reed, otherwise you'll be in a different military hospital, some excellent, some okay, and some barely passable (just like any large dispersed group). No longer active duty but with service related injuries, you go to the VA. Now imagine the differences in both numbers of patients and age/health of those patients. Military hospitals will generally see younger people with acute issues (broken leg, arm blown off, a cough, etc.) Where as VA hospitals will see older parents with chronic conditions. Plus there are millions more veterans then active duty service members. It's not a surprise the VA has issues since they are almost always underfunded and over worked.",
"> awful horrible care a VA hospitals The VA provides comparable or superior care compared to non-VA entities in most domains. URL_1 URL_0 If you google \"outcomes of VA care\" you can find other articles and studies about the topic. This idea that VA hospitals are shitty and provide poor care is largely a myth. Many of them are old and look like shit, but the care they provide is usually comparable to non-VA care.",
"It also may have to do with the fact that Walter Reed is where the Senators/Representatives go for care, so of course the standard of care is going to be higher based on who the patient base is."
],
"score": [
16,
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2838151/",
"https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160209121532.htm"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xmfsh | Why is Politics not a compulsory course from high school through college? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dejc2lv",
"dejibrw",
"dej9a5m",
"dejg2pu",
"dejn7sf",
"dejqki3",
"dej9d9m"
],
"text": [
"A \"politics\" course sounds a lot like government indoctrination. In high school (Colorado, USA) we already have courses that cover the branches of government, how elections work, etc. How much further do you think it should go?",
"The better question is why aren't financial classes mandatory. Too many financial illiterate adults in society.",
"We have civic education in high school in my country. They teach you how the political system works, the separation of affairs between the different powers of State, what elections are for, etc. Let me tell you, it doesn't seem to make much of difference if you look at what people end up voting for...",
"In New York State, high schoolers are required to take half a year of U.S. Government and half a year of economics (including a financial literacy component). In my class, we were required to write brief weekly reports on government-related news, which was generally political. I believe that one of the teachers required students specifically to read the WSJ in some capacity, but I don't remember the details (though I know that the library stocked it). One obstacle to a more explicit politics course in high school is trying to define a neutral, objective stance. There are still a few schoolboards in the U.S. who don't like the idea of evolution being taught as fact and who deliberately rewrite sections of the history curriculum to suit their politics. A government-defined “neutral” stance on modern politics seems to be asking for trouble.",
"In a way, we do. We discuss how the three branches work, basic election procedure, how a bill becomes a law, etc. Beyond that, there is nothing more to say unless you want to start teaching one political agenda over another. Ideally, children would develope the critical faculties needed to reason the \"right way\" to run the the government a side benefit of a quality education. Side note: a lot of people forget the most basic parts of government operations anyway...",
"There used to be a class called \"civics\". They don't teach it any more. Maybe because the schools have a mandate to not spend any money on things that aren't absolutely essential (home economics, and shop classes are also being cut), or maybe because a lot of politicians would prefer that the American populace not actually have a good understanding of how government works. If people don't really get why gerrymandering or voter suppression are bad things, then politicians can get away with doing it. If people don't actually know what the constitution says, politicians are more likely to get away with violating it, or with falsely accusing their rivals with violating it.",
"Because telling people \"this is how to rule a country\" makes no sense. No one *knows* what the best way is, so it can't be taught. If you mean a general education on the respective country's political figures, then it's because that's not very long term. An overview of the system itself is already being taught, at least here in the Netherlands."
],
"score": [
59,
10,
9,
7,
6,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xml2g | How do streaming services, like Spotify, make a profit? | The majority of users are on free plans so I was wondering as to how a profit was generated. Also, why do artists give their music to such services where their music can be streamed for free? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dej8am8",
"dej8bd6",
"dejhass"
],
"text": [
"Advertisements for the free users and the rest pay a montly subscription fee. Artists gets payed based on how many people listen to their songs on spotify and they also reach a lot more people with their music. This increases their chances of more people coming to their conserts and buying albums.",
"Either you pay for it or you listen to ads (and advertisers pay them to run those ads) . That's where the income comes from. Spotify then pays the artists with that money based on the number of times their songs get played.",
"A couple things about Spotify. They charge a severe premium for advertising on their platform because of their huge user base. I tried advertising with them and they wouldn't do anything below $10,000 a month. Secondly, they have negotiated their royalties down so low that artists make next to nothing. They defend this because they say it increases album sales. Their data on that is shaky at best. This is why platforms like Tidal and Apple Music get so many exclusives Spotify doesn't have. Artists are sick of their bullshit. YouTube is next for the mass exodus, and labels are already threatening to pull their music if royalties don't go up by a measure of billions of dollars."
],
"score": [
33,
7,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5xmoe9 | In the US, if the government finds that, say, a farmer, has been employing illegals, does the farmer receive a punishment? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dej90ji"
],
"text": [
"Good question. Apparently: \"Penalties for Hiring Undocumented Immigrants. You may be subject to civil and criminal penalties for hiring undocumented immigrant workers. ... If you are found to have engaged in a “pattern and practice” of hiring undocumented workers, then you can be fined up to $3,000 per employee and/or imprisoned for up to six months.\" Legal Pitfalls of Hiring Undocumented Immigrants | URL_0"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"Nolo.com"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xmyu6 | Why does Reddit "baby talk" and say things like doggo, pupper, floof, friendo, etc.? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dejbrkn"
],
"text": [
"It's a case of the style, tone, and content of the comments in a sub matching the content of that sub. So in /r/4chan people use greentext and say \"be me\", and in the porn subs people say filthy things, in /r/science people complex comments that I can't understand, in /r/jokes people post more jokes in the comments, and in the cute subs full of cute animals people in the comments use cutesy words like boop, floof, and pupper."
],
"score": [
11
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xnhnw | Why do urban climbers that upload footage with their faces in it rarely get punished by law? | People like James Kingston, Nightscape. How do they usually end up getting out, publishing the video and not get suited or simply get a fine for it? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dejerml"
],
"text": [
"It is rarely illegal for people to climb things. Some cities that have had problems have made specific laws to prevent it, and some cities with suicide problems have ordinances for bridges, but in general there are no laws stating that you cannot climb stuff."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5xpia1 | Why do people in their 20s have higher rates of depression when compared with other age groups? | I was looking at [this]( URL_0 ) chart from an [article]( URL_1 ) on depression around the world and was interested in the high rates of depression for people in their 20s. Obviously there are many factors involved but I'm curious if there is an accurate hypothesis on why these numbers are so high. Thank you! | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dejx7u0",
"dejztkf"
],
"text": [
"Likely due to a combination of factors. As is often true, you may find depression is linked to the circumstances rather than directly to age, though the circumstances are themselves linked to age. For example: Lack of financial/career security. Major life changes such as school to career or undergrad to graduate school. Lower rate of consistent or permanent relationships such as marriage. It's not that people of that age are less adaptable or capable of tackling these challenges, but by later ages people are more likely to have \"settled down\" in various ways. There may also be biological factors, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was mostly circumstantial.",
"Because of the social pressure put on young people. If you don't have friends you fail. No good job you fail. Both of those together and then you are just a cretin and a drain on society. It's just life. Sometimes you get a shit hand"
],
"score": [
11,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5xq9ad | What's the difference between the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the FBI? | In the U.S., I think the DoJ is the state's lawyers, i.e., if the state wants to bring a case against an individual or organization, the DoJ does all the research, assembles the facts, investigates, interviews, and makes a case against the individual (or organization) in a court of law. (But can the DoJ make arrests?) So... what does the FBI do? It can investigate... but can it bring a case against an individual (or organization)? Is the FBI just the "research department", so to speak, gathering all the facts of the case, interviews, fingerprints, data analysis, et cetera, and then the DoJ formally brings the case against the person? [Side note: Other countries have a Ministry of Justice (Canada, Germany, Australia, Japan, et cetera). Is that the same as the U.S.' DoJ?] Thank you. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dek0wqh"
],
"text": [
"The DOJ is a cabinet-level agency which is responsible for enforcing US federal law. The FBI is an agency which operates under that (along with many other agencies and departments). A full breakdown is here: URL_0"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice#Organization"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5xqe88 | why does the US gov't allow known foreign spies to operate within the country? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dek1z7a",
"dek27b5"
],
"text": [
"So that US spys can operate in other countries. Good spying helps prevent misunderstandings. This is why the US relationship with adversaries like Russia and China is better than her relationship with closed countries like NK and Iran.",
"Each country knows that if it gets really strict on spies, other countries will do the same to it. So most countries tolerate a bit, as long as they don't go too far (like murdering people or stealing secret weapons designs)."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xqfna | How did we decide where the prime meridian goes? | I understand the placement of the equator because there is a definite northern most and southern most point on earth so the equator would obviously be directly between the two, but that isn't true for east and west. Is the prime meridian just arbitrary in its placement or is there an actual reason for it to be exactly where it is? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dek291f"
],
"text": [
"It was located to run through Greenwich, England, because the Royal Observatory (one of the leading science and navigation institutions at that time) is located there. [Here it is]( URL_0 ) marked on the ground in Greenwich today."
],
"score": [
9
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://c8.alamy.com/comp/CCDC2M/the-line-marking-the-greenwich-meridian-cleethorpes-lincolnshire-CCDC2M.jpg"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5xqhgw | Reddit could you please explain the Political Correctness debate like I'm five? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dek3inx",
"dek2ygr"
],
"text": [
"Argument 1: I should be able to say whatever I want, whenever I want about whomever I want. This is protected by the 1st amendment and any attempt to silence me is a violation of this. Argument 2: People need to be respectful of others feelings, beliefs and opinions. If someone says something offensive about a person or demographic they should be prepared to suffer the consequences. Inconsiderate comments should be censored in order to prevent offending people.",
"Free speech is a right and a responsibility. You can say whatever you want, but in exchange you need to be thoughtful of the impact your words will have on others. Some people are not very thoughtful, this is bad. Some people want to take away the free speech of these people and appoint themselves as the decider for who gets to speak and who is censored. They think that things would be more civil under their benevolent dictatorship, this is also bad because dictators are not very thoughtful. There is a debate because both of these kinds of bad people can't seem to be thoughtful and keep their mouth shut."
],
"score": [
10,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xqkz1 | Why do you sometimes take a nap and wake up in an even worse mood? | Sometimes when you take a nap you wake up feeling rejuvenated and refreshed but sometimes you wake up feeling miserable and agitated...why? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dek9pjh",
"dekig7z"
],
"text": [
"You are probably \"napping\" too long, and actually falling asleep for a longer period of time. Rapid eye movement (REM) occurs about an hour and a half after you fall asleep initially, which when woken up in the middle of, will often cause grogginess and lethargy. When taking a nap, you don't need to fall asleep; your aim ought to be to simply relax, clear your mind and let your body physically and mentally rest with your eyes closed. If you fall asleep, your body will jump into a highly taxing rejuvenation mode. I believe the biggest \"bang for your buck\" kind of napping is about 20-25 minutes at a time, where you will get the most benefit for the time spent napping. More than that, you risk being groggy, still tired, etc. when you awake, and any less than that (e.g. 5-10 min.) might not be worth the effort as much.",
"The other two users already explained the why so im just gonna throw in a tip. If you wanna nap shoot for either 20 mins or 2 hours. Waking at these time intervals will typically keep you from waking during a cycle of sleep that would leave you groggy upon awakening"
],
"score": [
16,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5xt96q | Why do people concentrate better while listening to music? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dekndyj"
],
"text": [
"Not everyone does. I find music incredibly distracting. That said, it probably functions as white noise for some people, blocking out specific distracting noises with a constant drone, allowing your brain to block out external stimuli."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xti9e | Why is macaroni and cheese such a big thing in America? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dektz79",
"dekro98",
"dekpb7l",
"deksmae",
"dekss9g",
"dekvz92",
"dekv0h3",
"deks3fp",
"dektqqq",
"dekw4u4",
"deky6ju",
"dekrchp",
"dekyah0",
"del5r5u",
"dekul0u",
"del0dxb",
"dekyrq9",
"dekxx9j",
"dekzz1i",
"dekun32",
"del0o4m",
"dektpn5",
"dekxc4l",
"dekv74n",
"del1104",
"del0yfl",
"dekssm7",
"dektnyk",
"dekyiyo",
"del5q9i",
"del0mh0",
"del2y7r"
],
"text": [
"Macaroni and cheese is: 1. [Cheap to manufacture/Cheap to buy]( URL_3 ) - At $0.12/ounce, you're essentially looking at ~$0.03/ounce manufacturing cost (possibly less), which is basically like printing money for Kraft or any other manufacturer. A box of Kraft Mac N Cheese goes for about $1.30 at Dollar General, and there are 3 servings per box. If you eat that 3 times a day you're only spending $1.30/day on food. Talk about a poor college kid's dream. These two aspects are the root cause of Mac N Cheese being everywhere in the US. It's cheap to mass produce, so supply is through the roof. The next few points explain the demand piece. 2. [Practically impervious to spoilage]( URL_4 ) - Shelf life discussions that I've read show Kraft lasting up to 5 years after expiration date. For grocers, expiration dates are about a year out from when they arrive to stores. This means that it's cheaper to buy in bulk and keep massive inventories of the stuff, and slowly sell over the year. For consumers, it's cheap to buy in bulk and just eat whenever. 3. [Salty, Fatty, Starchy, Sugary]( URL_2 ) - A box of Mac N Cheese has salt, fat, starch and sugar, which are the 4 main drivers of food cravings. Simply put, Mac N Cheese is delicious, and scientifically manufactured to be something that children crave. 4. [Nostalgic]( URL_0 ) - Because of the reasons above, people associate Mac N Cheese with their childhood. This means it remains a staple *through generations*. This is perhaps the most powerful factor in the perpetuation of its popularity. ****Edit*** - Just a note to those commenting that this doesn't necessarily explain why it's an American phenomenon. There are a ton of sociological and economic issues involved here, the most important of which is post-WWII expansion and the baby boom. Through the 50s and 60s, prosperity in the home was measured by having a well-stocked pantry. Largely due to lean years of their youth, Americans in the 50s prided themselves on having a big, full pantry. As a result, the average american home bought lots of non-perishables (soup, spam, canned meats, dry goods, etc), and loved keeping their pantries stocked. Mac N Cheese was one of these non-perishables, and its popularity in the 40s, 50s, and 60s would make it a staple for generations to come. That and marketing. If you want to learn more about this era in history, a good starting point is the [Kitchen Debate]( URL_1 ).",
"It's like American Ramen. You can put basically whatever you want in it. It's cheap. I, for instance made pulled pork last week. So I added my pulled pork with onion, sweet peppers and mushroom. Then threw in a little cheddar and Greek yoghurt (makes it creamy). It's molto bene, I look forward to lunch Edit: I'd like to report that I'm about to get to the office and partake in macaroni ecstasy. My knees are weak and arms spaghetti/macaroni Edit 2: it is done. There's a mixture of satisfaction and shame. It was worth it. The gods have been sated Edit 3: someone asked for recipe. Pulled pork tenderloin. Hit it in the smoker for about an hour(optional, unless you're Texan, apparently) then 10 hours in the crockpot with cumin paprika oregano and a touch of Worcestershire. Made regular Mac and cheese out of a box (actually 3 boxes, this is a week of lunch). Before the pasta goes back in the pan, saute a medium red onion, 2 bell peppers worth of whatever sweet peppers you like (I like the jalapeno size sweets that come in a bag, chopped into rings), 1 of the small square containers of mushrooms (sliced). Saute that veg, toss in the pulled pork to warm it up, get it all happy. Add in the pasta and start adding the cheese you like. If you like the box stuff, use it. Melting cheeses like cheddar, little mozz, little gouda couldn't hurt. I used the cheese in the box and then about half a cup of white cheddar extra, because fuck you, that's why. After that starts to melt, add in yoghurt until it gets to your preferred creamyness (no homo. Or all homo, I don't judge, and who gives a shit). Cover it with hot sauce. Or don't. I'm not your father and I assume you live in a free country. Shove it in your filthy maw until you hate yourself. I'm American, it's what we do.",
"It's a relatively cheap and easy to prepare food (total cost easily under $1/serving). For college students, that's pretty ideal.",
"This is like asking why is rice popular is so many parts of the world. The ingredients are cheap, easily available, and with a few tweaks can provide a relatively healthy calorie count and fat that help with the feeling of satiety. Most people think of it as a comfort food.",
"It's a food that a lot of people grew up with. It reminds them of their childhood and happy simple times. It's incredibly cheap to make. Generic boxes can cost about $0.60. There have been times that was all I could afford. That and Ramen. I didn't even have a hot plate to make beans. Takes about 10 minutes. 15 if you count the time to boil the water. It's pretty versatile. You can add meat and veggies and never run out of combinations. Kids can make it pretty easily on their own without needing a lot of supervision. It's incredibly filling for the price, because of the milk and butter you add, generally. You can eat ramen and you'll be hungry shortly after, but if you eat an entire pot of macaroni you will be full for the day. You'll probably feel like crap because it's just a big pile of processed carbs but you'll be full.",
"There are a lot of reasons for this. It was first popularized by Thomas Jefferson, who apparently loved the pasta and cheese dishes he encountered in France and Italy when he traveled. He even went so far as to buy a pasta-making machine, which apparently didn't work because the ambassador who bought it didn't know anything about pasta. Then Jefferson just imported it and European cheese. He served Macaroni and Cheese at dinner parties, much to the chagrin of the attendees, who were not used to such food at the time. In the 1800s, Macaroni and Cheese was considered a relatively fancy dish and was basically a butter-cheese-pasta casserole. By the end of the century, pasta had become more common, and it was no longer a fancy dish. It really hit its stride in American (and Canadian) culture as a part of the processed food revolution driven by the World Wars and industrialization of supply lines. Processed cheese was patented in 1916 by Kraft, and its long shelf life and cheap production made it an ideal product for the Depression and WWII rationing. It was remarkably cheap (you could get multiple servings on a single ration ticket) and filling and didn't require any meat (expensive and difficult to get during rationing). Women were also entering the workforce in response to labor shortages, and Mac N Cheese was easy and quick to make. This boom exposed a huge number of families to Mac N Cheese, and it continued to grow as parents had fond memories of being able to afford a dinner that tasted and felt indulgent, even if it was very inexpensive. It grew from there, and the latest wave of interest has been fueled by the growing artisanal food movement, in which families that have climbed the class ladder can afford more expensive fresh ingredients and are reexploring the original European roots of the dish.",
"It's not American-only thing. Not sure about the rest of Europe, [but here in Czechia there is a similar meal]( URL_0 ) (called *šunkofleky*, from my short google-fu apparently bastardization of geman *schinkenflecken*, literally ham-specks) which consists of some type of pasta (not nescessarily macaroni), ham and gratuitous amount of cheese. Extremely popular, extremely easy to make, extremely tasty.",
"This questions should be 'ELI5: Why isn't macaroni and cheese such a big thing in countries other than America?' However, to answer your question... 1. Cheap and easy to prepare. 2. CHEEEEEEESE! LOTS AND LOTS OF GLORIFIED HEAVENLY CHEEEEEESE!",
"I read the Wikipedia page the other night, pretty interesting and short! TJefferson brought the dish over originally from Europe and it was seen as/presented as a high class dish (mostly because the pasta was only available via import.) At one point he tried to buy a machine to produce the macaroni domestically, but it was unfortunately not to his liking as the imports of macaroni continued.",
"Something people aren't mentioning is that there are two big categories of mac and cheese that you have to consider. There's the kind that comes from a box, and the kind you make from scratch. Both are American favorites, but I'd argue for different reasons. * Boxed mac such as Kraft Mac and Cheese (aka Kraft Dinner) as others have said is quick, easy, and cheap. We grew up with it, and it remains delicious in a fast food sort of way. * Homemade mac is still relatively easy, but you have to pay a bit more for ingredients and spend some time at the stove/oven depending on the recipe. When baked, it's technically a casserole. While you can add extra ingredients to boxed mac, there's even more options to customize homemade mac. You can choose different cheeses, pasta, toppings, or other things to mix it. Most people also love a hearty home-cooked meal. Also reheats pretty well as a meal later! For me, this type is also something I had growing up, so it's also fairly nostalgic.",
"When I was a kid, my family was very poor. I didn't really realize it cuz I was young and didn't really give a shit about wealth at the time. My mom and dad worked constantly and the only times my mom was home, she would make us mac and cheese with hot dogs as dinner. Still to this day that is my comfort food when I feel lonely or had a long day and it makes me happy. I think subconsciously it's not as much the food as the feeling of comfort I obtain from it. It's more of a treat for me personally.",
"It is part of american nostalgia, also understand we are a country obsessed with cheese particularly chedder cheese.",
"This is by far a bigger thing in Canada than the US, for one, and two.... I mean...what? Why is pizza such a big thing in Italy? It is readily available, inexpensive and versatile ingredients. It is, for better or worse, basically \"nursery food\" (meaning, a staple for children) because: filling, cheap, can be bland if needed, delicious and so kids eat it up.",
"I'm going to ignore the top answers, bc I personally do not like boxed Mac n cheese. But make it from scratch with sharp cheddar, dry mustard and top with paprika and breadcrumbs and bake and it's the shit. The good home cooked from scratch Mac n cheese is good shit.",
"Just curious where you are from? Things that are super normal in one country sometimes seem odd to those from a noticeably different culture. I'm guessing you are from a culture that doesn't eat much cheese and carbs. It it's the the healthiest thing in the world, but to many people the combination of cheese and carbs tastes delicious and when combined make the perfect comfort food. That comforting deliciousness is the reason why it is popular.",
"If you think Mac and cheese is big in America, you haven't seen how protective Canadians are of Kraft Dinner....",
"With all due respect to the posters that say it's popular because it's dirt cheap and discuss Kraft macaroni and cheese, I disagree. Firstly, the OP asked about macaroni and cheese. He did NOT ask about KRAFT MACARONI AND CHEESE. Yes boxed mac and cheese is dirt cheap. But there is \"homemade\" mac and cheese that has been popular a lot longer. And homemade mac and cheese is NOT cheap to make. Not at all. No matter how it's made (I make a roux with cheese), other than macaroni, the other ingredients are kind of expensive. Fresh cheeses, eggs, butter, etc. , can add up. I spend of minimum of 5-8 bucks for every casserole I make. I might add that I do make mac and cheese casserole style, not the creamy stove top mac and cheese. I also usually make big casserole s with several servings so I only make them for family dinners or special occasions. Creamy style (homemade) might be less expensive. tldr; homemade macaroni in cheese is NOT inexpensive, and kraft mac and cheese is inedible.",
"I hear it's even more popular in Canada. Isn't Kraft Mac n Cheese the national dish of Canada or something like that?",
"It's the American interpretation of Käsespätzle - Which is a German (Swabian) Dish that everybody loves.",
"This is the wrong question. Why ISN'T it a big deal everywhere else too? That is the real puzzler.",
"The popularity of Mac and Cheese really started with the [Government Cheese program]( URL_0 ). The government cheese program started in the early 1980s. Many of us between the age of about 30 and 40-45 grew up in a time of free government cheese. When we had kids, it became a staple of the American kitchen for that reason. It was something that most parents in the 1980s could easily throw together after a long day of work, especially single parents. Any latch key kid of the 1980s knew how to feed themselves and their siblings. And in many cases, the cheese was free. A great example of government cheese is in Napoleon Dynamite. There's a scene were Kip is making nachos, shredding a giant block of yellow cheese.",
"I cant remember the last time I have had it, or seen someone eating it. I think its overblown, just like the \"red cup\" idea. However, I have seen two separate food chains that revolved around \"high end\" mac and cheese. One was conveniently placed on a strip of bars and had items like lobster & mac or sun dried tomatoes, artichoke & mac. 2am drunk me thought it was genius.",
"Let me give you the real answer.. If you have ever been to the USA, you would notice that literally most things have cheese on it. This is because the USA had such an abundance of cheese back in the day, and they actually had so much that they didnt know where to store it all. The Americans decided to store some of it in literal caves. And since there was such an abundance of the cheese, they decided to use it up and put it on almost every food to get rid of it. The government actually started giving away free cheese to hungry people. This was called government cheese. It is so popular here because the government secretly wants the USA to use up all their cheese. Also, it's delicious.",
"It's cheap as fuck, especially if it's KD or otherwise pre-made, but I usually make home made mac and cheese because there are so many ways you could make it to whatever you're feeling that night and still stay in a cheap price range. I usually add double smoked bacon and peas to elbow macaroni with marble cheese since it's cheap mixed with some gruyere to add some salty flavour to it, I make my own roux (butter, flour, milk) with garlic powder, salt, pepper, onion powder, nutmeg, oregano, thyme, parsley, and whatever else I'm feeling that day. Then mix it all together, put it in an oven safe container, layer some extra cheese on top with a lot of bread crumbs and pop it in the oven at 350 for 18-20mins until the top is golden brown. Yum.",
"I don't know about america, but I know that in Canada, Macaroni and Cheese was the life blood of people surviving the great depression. It was super cheap, filling, and still tasty. I believe it was actually invented by a canadian during the great depression honestly (could be an old tale, but that does tell you how ingrained in our culture it is).",
"It's delicious. Do we need a better reason? O.o",
"The relative cheapness is a huge factor. You can get a box from Aldi for around $0.33, and it is VERY filling. Plus it doesn't taste all that bad.",
"It's cheap (you can buy a bunch of microwaveable packages for like $5) and you just need pasta, milk, and some cheese if you're making it yourself. It's kind of like ramen, but american. Also, it's generally hard to make bad Mac and Cheese(imo).",
"I'm sure this will get removed because it seems simple and insincere but in the interest of explaining it to you like you are 5 all you need to know is: It's delicious. Now open up your mouth here comes the yum yum train!",
"It's comfort food, first and foremost. It's filling as a basic meal, and if you're feeling at all adventurous, almost anything can be added into it. It's about as cheap as a meal can get in the US (save only the I'm-totally-broke ramen). Perhaps the question should be 'why is it **not** a bigger thing elsewhere?'",
"Interesting how no-one has mentioned the fact that American culinary behemoth Kraft has marketed an extremely successful version of macaroni and cheese at very low prices over the last few decades. I'm sure the accessibility of Kraft Dinner was instrumental in bringing the dish into the hive mind. I don't mean to be critical, but there are very few American traditions that cannot be traced to a corporation pushing for it.",
"It's bigger in Canada apparently: > Kraft Dinner has been called the de facto national dish of Canada.[3] Packaged in Quebec with Canadian wheat and milk, and other ingredients from Canada and the US,[14] Canadians purchase 1.7 million of the 7 million boxes sold globally each week[15] and eat an average of 3.2 boxes of Kraft Dinner each year, 55% more than Americans. The meal is the most popular grocery item in the country,[3][16] where \"Kraft Dinner\" has iconic status and has become a generic trademark of sorts for macaroni and cheese.[17] It is often simply referred to by the initials K.D. As Kraft Dinner has a different name in Canada from the United States and other markets, the Canadian marketing and advertising platform is a made-in-Canada effort as US advertising cannot be easily adapted [Link]( URL_0 )"
],
"score": [
6740,
1441,
912,
202,
162,
115,
79,
68,
48,
34,
17,
16,
16,
14,
14,
10,
10,
9,
8,
7,
6,
5,
5,
5,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://nerdist.com/star-wars-kraft-macaroni-and-cheese-gets-nostalgic-in-new-ad/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchen_Debate",
"http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/diet-fitness/information/comfort-food-guilty-pleasure2.htm",
"https://www.amazon.com/Kraft-Macaroni-Cheese-Ounce-Boxes/dp/B00NGJSCMK?th=1",
"http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_10_17/624139_Real_shelf_life_of_Kraft_Macaroni_and_Cheese_.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.google.cz/search?q=%C5%A1unkofleky&rlz=1C1AVNE_csCZ681CZ681&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjG6ez9p8LSAhXCDCwKHR4qCh4Q_AUICCgB&biw=1920&bih=919#imgrc=_"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_cheese"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraft_Dinner"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xucdm | Why is it in Japanese media that they depict sudden arousal leading to nosebleeds? How did this start and why is it still a thing? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dekwg6w"
],
"text": [
"It is referencing an old wives' tale stating something along the lines that men who are unpopular/unexperienced with women get nose bleeds from the increased blood pressure from being aroused. That's why it's usually goofy or lonely characters like Master Roshi getting nose bleeds, he's constantly looking at porn, but the fact that he gets nose bleeds from Launch and Bulma implies that he hasn't gotten laid in a *long* time."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xv6jm | What happened in the Bible and how much of it is true? | I'm from a different part of the world. All I know about the Bible is through pop culture. Noah's Ark, Jesus, water to wine, walk on water, and crucifixion. Clearly the part about Young Earth and all isn't true, but Jesus Christ was a real person, right? What cause did he champion and how did he come to be considered the son of god? And how'd he die? Edit: I also remembered that I had heard about the Garden of Eden and the Adam-Eve-Apple story, not sure how that's relevant. And whatever mythology spills over in supernatural. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"del3cs0",
"del3ggs",
"deld8iy",
"del3ama",
"del5ept"
],
"text": [
"Part of the problem with answering that question is the fact that there is precious little information about the man outside of the Bible. No contemporary writings of Jesus of Nazareth exist, and even the biblical teachings were not written down for a couple hundred years. The closest writing is that of Josephus, around 94 AD.",
"The Bible is a long collection of stories and it take far too long to go through all of them here, so this will just be a brief overview. The usual Christian Bible is split into two parts: the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is stories about the Jewish people from before Jesus. The New Testament is about Jesus and stories from after he died. Major stories in the Old Testament include the creation story, the story of the Jews fleeing Egypt under Moses, the story of Job, King David, and all of that. The New Testament is about Jesus' life and teachings and the founding of the new Christian church. Most of the stories aren't true (or at least aren't verifiable), but they are based in history. For example, it's unlikely that any story about a particular person is true since so much time has passed. However, the references to the ancient kingdoms that existed are probably true (though they may be a bit inaccurate about dates, etc.). As for the New Testament, the historical consensus is that Jesus was probably a real person who claimed to be the son of God. There isn't a whole lot written about Jesus by non-Christians from around the time he lived, which is what you would expect since non-Christians would not have thought of Jesus as special, but there are a couple of references to him. There are enough secondhand accounts, though, to make it seem likely that he was real and that he was crucified. However, everything in the New Testament was written from stories of people who knew people who knew Jesus - none of the authors knew Jesus directly. As a result, the details of his life are probably untrue.",
"There is a lot that happened in Bible. The Bible was written over a period of roughly 2,000 years by 40 different authors from three continents, who wrote in three different languages. Some books contain stories, some contain teachings, and some contain poetry. I will try to give you a simple explanation of the Bible. Pretty much everything from creation up until King David is heavily debated whether it is factual or not. Believers generally take it all as fact, and non-believers generally take it all as myth. There isn't much concrete proof outside of the Bible for a lot of it. **Genesis**: Begins with the story of how God created everything. Goes to the story of Noah where God flooded the earth. Noah's family repopulated the earth and then God chose Abraham to become the father of a holy nation. The story then follows several generations until you get to Joseph and his 11 brothers. Joseph was separated from his family and became a prominent figure of Egypt. A famine brought his family to Egypt where Joseph could help them, and the entire family settled in Egypt. Joseph's brothers and his two sons become the basis for the tribes of Israel. Israel was the name of the nation of God, but at this point in the Bible they are simply a group of people living in Egypt. **Exodus**: Picks up several hundred years later. Apparently a new pharaoh of Egypt felt threatened by the Jews and enslaved them all. They lived in slavery until a man named Moses came along. He was an Israelite, but was adopted and raised by pharaoh's daughter. He ran away and in the wilderness God spoke to him and told him that he would lead God's people out of Egypt. God brought ten plagues to Egypt to convince pharaoh to let His people go. Eventually pharaoh did let them go and all the Israelite left Egypt as free men and women. Pharaoh changed his mind however and went to fight the Israelites, but they were able to escape after God parted the waters of a sea so they could walk across. Pharaoh tried to chase them but drowned along with all his men when God stopped parting the waters. **Leviticus, Numbers Deuteronomy**: contains laws set by God on how the Israelites are to conduct themselves and their upcoming nation. It also documents their time in the wilderness. Because of the people's lack of faith they were punished to wander the wilderness for 40 years until an entire generation died. The next generation would inherit the land of Israel. God provided food and water to the Israelites during this time and they were entirely dependent on Him. **Joshua**: documents the Israelites conquering the land they are to settle. They find it inhabited and are to wipe everyone out. They basically murder everyone and take the land, but there are patches of people here and there who put up some resistance. The land is split into twelve lots and given to each tribe. The tribe of Levi doesn't receive any land, but they are given the duty of becoming priests. **Judges**: describes a time when the nation of Israel had no king. During this time other nation attempted to conquer parts, or all, of Israel and God chose specific people to lead the armies of Israel in a resistance. The most famous story in here is about Samson who was famous for having long hair and superhuman strength. When his hair was cut off he lost his strength and was captured and blinded. Years later (after his hair had grown back) during a party he knocked down two columns and killed thousands of Philistines at once (killing more in his death than when he lived). **Ruth**: documents the great-grandmother of David. David will become king of Israel later. **1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles**: documents the time when Israel had kings. Saul was the first king, but lost favor with God and was replaced with David who was known as \"a man after God's own heart\". The next king was David's son Solomon who built the temple where animals were slaughtered according to the laws given in earlier books. The idea being that sin against God demands retribution and the spilling of blood. God's wrath against sinners is redirected to the animals and the people are saved. Solomon later marries many women of different nations to make alliances with those nations. He was then tainted by the other religions they brought and God decides to punish the nation and splits it in a civil war. The people of both nations begin to fall away from God and worship other Gods, and then God brings other nations to conquer them both. The Israelites are scattered throughout all the lands. **Ezra and Nehemiah**: details the time when the nation of Israel is allowed to come back under the nation of Persia. The Israelites travel from all over and come \"home\" to rebuild the Temple and the nation (although it is still ruled by Persia). ***At this point the Old Testament ceases to be in chronological order*** **Job**: a story about a Godly man who is tested by the devil. This is actually the oldest book in the Bible and I'm not really sure when it is supposed to take place. **Psalms**: is a book of poetry. Mostly songs the Israelites sung to or about God. King David is attributed as being the authour of many of these songs. **Proverbs**: a book believed to be written by King Solomon. It is essentially a guide to his son on how to live a good and Godly life and resist/avoid temptation. **Ecclesiastes**: a book all about the meaning of life. It shows how without God one cannot derive meaning from anything. It is also a book believe to be written by King Solomon. **Song of Solomon**: yet another book attributed to King Solomon. This one is mainly love poetry. After this you have **the greater and lesser prophets**. This is a mixture of stories and prophecies. Many of these prophecies speak of a messiah that is to come and a time when Israel will become a great nation again. These prophets arose at different times throughout the history of Israel, and I honestly don't know a lot about many of them. The most famous prophet is Daniel who is most famous for being placed in a lion's den overnight. God protected him and he came out unscathed. He prophesied a list of nations would come and overtake the other. These include Babylon, Persia, Greeks and Rome. After Rome he predicted that God's kingdom would come. This ends the Old Testament The new testament is all about Jesus. Jesus was born around 4 BC when Israel was a nation under Roman rule. There had been a period of silence from God for about 400 years. **Matthew Mark Luke and John** detail the life of Jesus Christ. Jesus claimed to be the long awaited Messiah that the Israelites were waiting for, but he was different that they expected. They expected a great leader to end their subjugation, but this isn't what Jesus was about. The basic message of Christianity is that He came to suffer and die and take the full wrath of God for our sins. The slaughtered animals taught in the law was only a symbol of what he has done for us. Anyone who believes in Him can attain eternal salvation and be right with God forever. He taught that Godly living isn't about following a set of laws, and is about loving God and loving each other. This message was so radical that the leading Israelites of the time put him to death on a cross (a particularly gruesome and torturous way to die). They thought they were killing a blasphemer, but it was all part of the plan. Through his death, his believers are saved. Three days later Jesus rose from the grave and spent some time with his believers before ascending to heaven. **Acts**: details what happened after Jesus. His followers were able to spread the message throughout Rome (the know world) and set up churches in a very short amount of time. It begins by following the acts of Jesus' disciples (his closest followers and students). About halfway through the book it follows Paul. Paul was an important Israelite who was given the task of persecuting and killing Christians. However, Jesus appeared to Paul personally and converted him and personally taught him in the ways of Christianity. Paul became the first and most prominent missionary of the time. The rest of the New Testament are letters from Paul and some of the disciples. These are mainly to specific churches, or to certain people. Many are addressing specific issues that arose in those churches at that time, but they lay a foundation for how the church and it's people are to behave. The last book of the Bible is **Revelation** that is a prophetic book about the end of the world. It is heavily symbolic and many sects of Christianity debate on what exactly is meant in this book. I know this was super quick, and super long, but I hope it provides a groundwork for your introduction to the Bible. Let me know if you have any questions, or would like me to expand on any of the sections.",
"> but Jesus Christ was a real person, right? Probably, yes. It is also likely that not everything attributed to him actually took place, but the legends likely center on what was a real person. > What cause did he champion and how did he come to be considered the son of god? That is difficult to say exactly, but he was most likely a preacher who was convinced the \"End Times\" were imminent. It may be that his being the Son of God was something what was added later. > And how'd he die? Probably he was crucified.",
"Jesus Christ is a real person or not is a difficult question to answer. The problem is that we don't have much other source than the bible. Take Julius Caesar. We have a lot of literature talking about it. Some from himself, some from his friends and some from his enemies. We have different point of view about the same person. We also have archaeological finding that reinforce the position that Julius Ceasar was real. When it come to Jesus we don't have as much. We don't even know the author of most of the bible. It doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't a real person, but we don't much evident that he indeed existed."
],
"score": [
13,
10,
8,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5xv8kt | Why do men's ballet tights commonly emphasize the crack so much? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"del9ohe"
],
"text": [
"Former theatrical costume designer here. Basically, the standard tights male dancers wear were developed toward the end of the 19th century. They offer the greatest freedom of movement and, to be honest, show off the ideal male dancer's physique and form. In essence, as an audience member, you're *supposed* to notice the muscular gluteal and ascending thigh musculature, not the crack so much. Bigger glutes = deeper crack. Don't get me wrong: when the revised tights look came into vogue during the Victorian era, it offended many people. Male's waistcoats were lowered and raised countless times since their introduction, depending on the tolerance of the public. For example, the Victorians were scandalized by seeing the male form; their costume not leaving much to the imagination. Now we, as a society in general, don't mind so much."
],
"score": [
12
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xva2l | why do some people think the world is only 6,000 years old? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"del47no",
"del55t9",
"del3tsl",
"del3t2i"
],
"text": [
"There are calculations based on the lifetimes of people mentioned specifically in the Old Testament that trace a continuous line right from the start of around 6000 years to now. So that's how old the earth is. But you have to believe in the absolutely literal interpretation of the Old Testament, that;s a relatively small number of people. PLUS you have to buy the calculation, and even some literal interpretests have made arguments that the calculation process for 6000 years is flawed.",
"It is based on the calculations of the Bishop of Armagh (Ireland) in the 1600s, [James Ussher]( URL_0 ). He took all the stories in the Bible and subtracted all the dates from his current date and came up with the wonderfully precise answer that creation began on Saturday, October 22, 4004 BC. In the evening.",
"Because if you follow the Biblical timeline of events then that would follow that the world has only existed for around 6,000 years. Outside of the Bible there isn't much to support that theory.",
"Because their reading of the Bible says so, not that this is the only reading of the Bible. Some people are very literal and linear in their thought processes. No facts are involved, because the Earth is very much older."
],
"score": [
12,
7,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xvdb1 | Foreign singers with and accent seem to able to sing in perfect english. Why is that? | i.e. singer of ghost. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"del76ep",
"del4kzs",
"delahoq"
],
"text": [
"Singing works with a different part of the brain than normal speaking. (We know this because of stroke patients who can still sing and even I think learn new songs while being unable to speak.) But also, English is actually pronounced a bit differently when sung than when spoken. Vowels change a bit, dipthongs change a lot and are often only their first part with the last added on at the very end (\"ow\" to \"aaaaaaaaao\" for example), and over-enunciating sounds normal (whereas normal American English consonants often sound like mumbling). Syllables are also often held for longer, or else very quick, meaning that there's either more time to get it right, or it's too quick to notice much. Between all these things, it's easier for someone with an accent to sound like they don't have one or have less of one. This is not universal, though! Sometimes a singer will keep or emphasize their accent for dramatic effect. Like, anything Rammstein's Till Lindeman has ever sung in English.",
"It's very easy to mimic the sounds in a song. The music is fixed, so you only concentrate on the pronunciation. Words are also fixed. However, on normal speech, you'll have problems with the intonation (the hardest to mimic) and sometimes with your choice of words, that might not be natural to a native english speaker.",
"I'm an English speaker who sings for the BSO (Boston). We practically never sing in English. We predominantly sing in German, but I've done shows in French, Italian, Latin and Russian. We always have a diction coach through the first few rehearsals as well as IPAs (International Phonetic Alphabet). Basically you learn what the word is supposed to sound like via the IPA and then the diction coach aids in additional pronunciation. We often end up singing close to 100% correct in these languages (as we should) because of these practices. I can't speak for a foreign singer to English, but would assume it is essentially the same practice."
],
"score": [
9,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5xvfn8 | Why are atheists so in the minority? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"del5ifg",
"del666c",
"del8uz1",
"del57oh",
"del5e0h",
"del5451",
"deldoud",
"del96r5",
"del5kd8",
"del99tq"
],
"text": [
"It's hard to overcome years of childhood indoctrination. If you're raised in even a minimally religious way you've had the concept of god presented as fact from infancy. It's difficult to reject something that is ingrained in your consciousness as being true.",
"URL_0 In France 40% of the population don't believe in any god or life force or spirit and an additional 27% believe in some spirit or life force, but not in god. That is not really a minority. The average in the EU(27) is 20% atheists. If you were to exclude very religious countries such as Ireland, Italy, Romania and Poland, the number would be a lot higher. 1 in 5, anyway, is not \"so in the minority\".",
"Because religion has historically been very successful at indoctrinating youth, and enforcing itself onto the population through fear and sometimes even by killing off heretics. Atheists are therefore a minority in general. However, more people tend to be atheists in nations where you are not likely to be stoned to death for lack of faith. The USA where I live is a key exception to this general rule. But the number of atheists relative to the population size is growing fairly well. Also, a huge majority of religious people here are basically only religious in name. As in, few actually follow their holy books, and most only call themselves religious when it suits them. Which is good. If Christians followed the bible strictly for example, we would have to bring back stonings for adultery and working on the Sabbath after all. It doesn't help either that megachurches and such get to count themselves as tax exempt. Churches here get massive amounts of money from gullible followers, and while some turn the money towards charitable causes, others simply use it to expand and indoctrinate.",
"Religion has always been used as the explanation of how/why. Science has only recently (in the human timeline) been able to replace the fairy tales with fact.",
"Coming to terms with a lot of hard truths or lack thereof is inconvenient. It's easier to have someone else do the thinking for you while telling you everything will be okay. Also, there are benefits and positives to being in a religious community. There's no real social incentive for giving it up even if you somehow don't believe or have doubts.",
"Critical thinking to the point of questioning the existence of everything they believe is difficult.",
"A lack of information over the years has led to the proliferation of religion. There's an incredibly strong correlation of education with atheism and atheism is growing rapidly. In fact, if you consider it a religion, it would be the fastest growing religion in the world. That being said, atheism is a religion like bald is a hair style.",
"Honestly because it is easier to believe in some sort of salvation. Its difficult for someone to come to terms with and decide that once they die, there's no afterlife or anything more after that, the idea that it is literally just the end for you for eternity can be kinda overwhelming. Furthermore, most people have some semblance of a moral compass, and since morality tied to religion so long ago, its difficult to relate that moral compass to anything other than some sort of religious institution.",
"22% of people in the US have \"no religion\", so that's a minority that's larger than African Americans. You seem to be viewing the statistics differently.",
"Another contributive factor is how subtley prevalent religion is to most important people in the world. In the US for example, it's in the pledge of allegiance, on our money, mentioned at least once or twice during any presidential speech. It's little phrases like \"god bless you\" and similar that remind atheistic persons that being a non-believer is uncommon. It's similarly unfortunate that the sciences are still unpopular in schools. Inspiring kids to challenge authority with fact and evidence driven skepticism isn't easy. The vast majority of students have no interest in really knowing why/how it all works because the math or science is \"too hard\" and being good at school makes you a nerd. It seems as if those stereotypes are on the decline but still. Not to highjack but the question I've got are how are their people like SmarterEveryDay who are well versed in stem concepts and is far from ignorant but still has the ability to balance his faith. I can't tell if he's just lying to himself for comfort or if he really undervalues the beauty and magnitude of how impactful the science is on the universe."
],
"score": [
55,
27,
17,
15,
13,
11,
9,
9,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe#Eurobarometer_poll_2010"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xw0af | If transubstantiation means the body of Christ is being eaten, doesn't that mean it's cannibalism? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"delaej8"
],
"text": [
"Not exactly. Denominations that believe in transubstantiation also don't think that Christ was merely human, but in fact the son of God. This includes the belief that he is *consubstantial*, that is, made of the same essence, as God the father. The typical idea of cannibalism doesn't really apply to that situation."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xwsxj | Can someone explain the new Healthcare system that was just announced | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"delgb5x",
"dels333"
],
"text": [
"No way to tell, with certainty, as this is just the first House version of the GOP plan. Uncountable revisions are in the future. The plan, as currently written, would repeal the ACA's fines on people who don't purchase health insurance. Instead of the statute's income-based premium subsidies, people would get tax credits based on age. The subsidies would phase out for higher-earning people. Plans couldn't exclude pre-existing conditions. Can insurance companies make money with this set of rules? Unknown. How much will it cost? It's still unscored. No real news here, maybe in a couple of months.",
"If you're referring to the Republican leadership plan that was put forth a few weeks ago: * Transform Medicaid from a federal entitlement program to a budgeted program. This is the most radical part of the proposal, no contest. Currently, most people who are below a certain income level are guaranteed Medicaid upon application, and if they visit a doctor, Medicaid (or a Medicaid managed plan) will cover it. The state Medicaid program will cover the cost initially, and then the federal government will compensate the state for it (with some exceptions - I live in NY, which covers Medicaid for legal aliens without federal backing because of a state court decision, Aliessa v. Novello). The important thing is that this money is guaranteed - whatever the cost is, doesn't matter if every single person on Medicaid gets cancer and needs expensive treatments, the government will pay for it. The plan would change that, by turning Medicaid into a budgetary item and distributing money to the states beforehand for Medicaid payments. If the state needs more money, they would have to request a grant expansion to Congress, who would then have to approve it. This proposal is extremely unpopular among state governors, whose state budgets are very dependent on Medicaid income, who would have to severely limit the number of people who can be on Medicaid; also, Medicaid pays for anyone affected by a crisis or natural disaster, such as an HIV epidemic or a hurricane, even if the person wouldn't normally qualify for Medicaid. Three things are certain: the federal government would save a lot of money, state governments would lose a lot of money, and a ton of people who can't normally afford health insurance wouldn't have access to it. If you've ever tried to get a Section 8 voucher and been on a waitlist for 5 years, that's because Section 8 isn't federally entitled like Medicaid is. This would turn Medicaid into Section 8. * Age-based tax credits. Under Obamacare, federal subsidies exist for people who cannot afford commercial plans, with the subsidies increasing for people with lower incomes. The newer plan would make those subsidies age-based, with more money going to a person who is older. This would help middle-class Americans, but it would hurt younger lower-class Americans. This is not to mention the idea that it is regressive - a 55 year old business mogul would receive the same subsidy as a 55 year old coal miner. * Health savings accounts. The Republican plan would allow people to put money into a tax-reduced or tax-free health savings account, to be used for medical expenses that an insurance company would not cover. Simultaneously, health insurance companies would be encouraged to raise deductibles. A deductible is the amount of money that a person has to pay their doctors before insurance kicks in that year - if a person has a $500 deductible, they have to cover $500 worth of medical expenses before the insurance company starts paying the doctors for that year. This is on top of premiums, of course. These accounts were around before Obamacare too, btw. They were fairly decent things for people who could afford them. But if you don't have the money to put into an HSA (or you don't have enough income to actually be paying taxes), this would essentially create a market that has higher deductibles without actually providing low-income people with a tool to pay for them. Then there's other stuff, as people have mentioned. No individual mandate (no fines for not having health insurance). Plans can't exclude pre-existing conditions. People can stay on their parent's plans until the age of 26. Those last two are popular aspects of Obamacare that Republicans would have a very hard time trying to repeal. I work in medical billing. I saw this proposed plan, and I thought it looked like absolute shit, to be quite frank. These concepts are popular among Republicans because they supposedly promote individual choice - you visit a doctor, you try to be smart about the care you receive because you don't want to pay for a ridiculously expensive procedure you don't need. But that's not how healthcare works. You visit a doctor, and that doctor figures out what treatment you need, not you (otherwise, why would you visit a doctor in the first place?). Also, that doctor is the one who will determine what was performed in that visit, and send the claim to your insurance company - you can come in anticipating a checkup and end up with $400 applied to your deductible because the doctor decided to run a few tests for your abdominal pain. Your only financial choice is deciding whether or not to see the doctor in the first place, and that's a perverse incentive to not visit the doctor when you're in pain. You're incentivized to stack healthcare - you enter a new year, and you say, \"ok, this year, I'm gonna visit every specialist I can think of\", and then hold out for the next 4 years or so without seeing any doctors. That's not how healthcare should work. That's not even insurance at that point - you're not using it when you need it. Basically, the Republican proposal is ignorant of the healthcare situation that this country was in back in 2007, and only seeks to accentuate the problems we had before Obamacare."
],
"score": [
15,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xwthv | What is ACLU's "The Resistance Training" and why does it matter? | I keep seeing the ad in my sidebar and even after clicking I am pretty clueless as to what the organizers are actually trying to accomplish. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"delgf7o"
],
"text": [
"Teach potential protestors how to follow the rules so they don't get injured, because injured protestors don't come out for the next scheduled protest. It covers the rules for being arrested, what to say, and when to keep your mouth shut."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5xx3le | could a military coup happen in the US? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"delinjn",
"delij93"
],
"text": [
"Sure, a military coup can happen anywhere with a standing army. I think it's unlikely in the US because the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, so to depose him military personnel would have to disobey unambiguously lawful orders. This is not the case in many countries where generals are the ultimate military authority and there are no civilians in the command structure. Also, military coups often occur in countries where the military is an older and more stable institution than the government (see: Latin America) - this is far from the situation in the US. Still, it is possible that a beloved general could command overwhelmingly more loyalty than the president and successfully depose him. That is a risk that comes with a powerful standing army, and one reason Americans opposed such an institution until the 20th century.",
"Not really and that's simply because there is too many people too coup against. What I mean is since we have multiple branches of government that are clearly not all like-minded there is no one body that is leading that the military would need to coup against. If a president was doing something that the military deemed unworthy the country would most likely agree and that President would be impeached. As much as many people don't like Trump it would be easier and more likely that the American people would have him removed from office then the military would rise up and conquer the United States."
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5xxcon | Why have African Americans struggled more than other immigrant groups in America in terms of poverty and incarceration rates? | Why have minority groups in America such as Mexicans, Japanese, Indian, Polish, German, Italian, Irish, Chinese, Korean, and any other Non-African groups prospered more than African Americans? By prosper I mean avoid the pitfalls of poverty and not becoming incarcerated. Is it education? Maintaining the nuclear family? Money from relatives back home? Melatonin? The for profit penal system? Law enforcement? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"delkmze",
"delktxi",
"dellc5r",
"dellaty",
"delodgy"
],
"text": [
"Imma go with \"Because they weren't subjected to 400 years of slavery followed by 100 years of state-sanctioned racism\" for 800 Alex.",
"When they immigrated, it was as slaves. And then when they tried to acquire wealth or influence after slavery, they were killed. The civil rights act is still within living memory. That's 400 years of America without the chance to build up capital, own stock, etc. No African Americans were allowed on the Board of Standard Oil, US Bank, or the Union Pacific. They have been building up wealth since the 60s and 70s, but it's tough to play catchup.",
"FYI, if your family has been in the United States for centuries, you're not an immigrate, you're an American.",
"Blah blah any mass \"integration\" had problems look at the Irish for example. They were not treated so well and they didn't act so great at the time either.",
"There was systemic discrimination until the past 50 years, and social discrimination still. The effects carry through generations. For example, the practice of redlining. When the federal government started guaranteeing mortgages -- opening the idea of home ownership, 30 year mortgages, etc. to Americans -- the lending guidelines outlines where govermment-guaranteed loans could be issued... green zones were safe to lend to, yellow were marginal and red was \"do not lend.\" Basically, any place African-Americans lived was defined as blighted and redlined. So it was difficult for blacks to build wealth though home ownership. They could buy with non-guaranteed loans though often shady lenders, or they could just rent. Now many middle class Americans have used home equity to fund retirement, fund college education for their children, held their children buy homes, etc. Take away that source of wealth and inter-generational help, and it has had an ongoing impact on the ability of the black middle class to develop. Additionally, places where blacks have lived have long been passed over in terms of education, parks, job recruitment... white flight caused many whites to head to suburbs (again, guaranteed green zone areas where they could easily get mortgages), and the tax base to fund schools went to the suburban schools. Companies began moving out of center cities and oursourcing manufacturing, taking jobs away from the black population centers inside big cities."
],
"score": [
10,
8,
7,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5xxigp | Why are the majority of celebrities liberal? | This isn't meant to start a political debate, I'm just wondering why so many celebrities seem to lean towards the left. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"delm3ng",
"delpruu",
"delp1d9",
"dem7pmm",
"delo7qo"
],
"text": [
"Most elites are on the progressive side of the balance, particularly those that work in an industry focused on new stories, new visions, and new music. If you want to find conservatives, look in vested interests like banking, investing, and religion.",
"In part because many of the fields that lead to celebrity (e.g acting) include people from diverse backgrounds racially, ethnically and sexual orientation. Interacting closely with people who are currently disadvantaged in terms of rights tends to cause one to support causes/politics that would lead toward your friends/coworker having similar rights. Actors/Athletes and such are also in general unionized and understand the perspective of the Labor side of the Labor Vs Management divide.",
"Acting is an art. Artists generally lean left politically. The republican party is the party for businesses and the democratic party if the party for businesses and sometimes the people.",
"Liberals are not open to oposing views, so if you are a conservative celebrity you have to keep your mouth shut. If you say anything that goes against the liberal narrative you will be attacked and nobody will work with you. Look what happens when conservatives try to foster discussions in Universities. Liberals start attacking innocent bystanders and setting fires to cars.",
"A lot of celebrities meet a ton of different people, and holding people equally no matter what is generally a liberal idea"
],
"score": [
32,
13,
11,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5xydpc | Is is illegal to drop everything and live in the woods, never paying taxes again? | For those people who wish to just escape from work, paying bills, politics, and pretty much all social life, is it against the law to just suddenly retreat to the forest and live off the land? Because obviously you won't be paying your taxes. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"delxx8f",
"deludyg",
"delu5aa",
"dem0ml2",
"deltzsr",
"delymk1"
],
"text": [
"Other posters are partially wrong about the property tax problem - many states have what's called an \"ad valorem exemption\" where the property you live on is exempted up to a certain value, and if you're living in the wilderness in a place you built being self-sufficient, the overall value of your property is not likely to exceed the exemption. As long as you pay your taxes first (and pay off any fines you may owe the government, such as speeding tickets, parking tickets...), you can abandon all the rest of your debts. A person cannot be prosecuted for ignoring private debts. You do risk being sued, but it's going to be difficult for anyone wanting to sue you to actually serve a subpoena. It is possible a debtor files a lien against your tract of land in the wilderness, but they have to find that first. The easiest way to avoid these issues in general is to not own the property yourself. You would want to find someone who owns a lot of land in the wilderness you want to live in and make an agreement with them. Since you're going off the grid, that agreement is likely to be a one time payment that you both agree constitutes permanent rent, and not interact with that person again. One problem here is that the person is still the owner and would still have legal recourse to throw you off the property no matter how much you pay. But if someone is sympathetic to your cause and you aren't causing any problems on the land, there is no reason that should happen. So that's the legal side of it. The other side of it is \"how many days after I watched Into the Wild will this still seem like a good idea?\" and the answer is 4 hours and 28 minutes after you begin your new life in the wilderness.",
"The short answer is 'no' but the reality of the situation is that you're probably going to break some laws doing it. For the first, where will you live? If the answer is 'on your own property' then you own something taxable, and you'll find yourself in trouble pretty quickly. Otherwise, you're likely either trespassing on private land or breaking a number of ordinances with prolonged presence on public land. Second, dropping everything may itself be a legal challenge. Very few people can be truly said to be living without entanglements, legally and financially. If you are single, over twenty six, with no outstanding debt and no legal contracts you may be alright but even then - where did everything you had go? You would have to be careful of a variety of laws and local ordinances concerning the disposition of property. Finally, you would have to be sure nobody would want to look for you. While being falsely declared missing or dead is not in itself illegal, if you take any advantage of those statuses or are found to be evading authorities, you can find yourself in an enormous legal mess.",
"Its not illegal to \"get yourself lost\" or \"go missing\". *In the US - I dont know how it works elsewhere. Vsauce covered it, in thier video \"How People Disappear\". URL_0 11:07 for the bit about it.",
"If you are not paying taxes, then generally YES. You are a squatter on either public or private property. If you own the property, you'd need to pay taxes. If you were able to pay for the property, then you could do whatever you like, including disappearing into your 1000 acre forest to never be seen again. Eventually though, someone would try to find you, whether for a census, or for a jury selection, or many other matters. If they don't find you, they'll simply report you as \"in absentia,\" and then eventually your property could actually be taken away from you, thus now making you a squatter, and breaking a law. You could have the option of becoming a transient (or nomad, or gypsy), and then you are kind of within the law, as long as you KEEP MOVING. But then you are not so much living off the land, as coming up with some sort of barter system to sustain by. Another option is not seeking the woods, but the oceans. It is perfectly legal to buy a boat and sail it all over the international waters. You could sustain yourself on sea life, and use a solar still for own water. If all debts are paid, and you own no property, and you renounce your citizenship, no one will come looking for you. The only problem comes when you do have a problem. Coming to shore may be an issue because now you are entering the jurisdiction of the country, and you are now stateless, meaning no citizenship. The country can then refuse you entry, meaning you are stuck on that boat and can't dock. Eventually, you'll sink. Finally, [here's]( URL_0 ) some interesting documentaries on people trying to live off the grid.",
"What about the woods you're living in? You can't set up permanent camp on public lands and if you own the lands, you owe property taxes on them. If it's public land, you need to pay for permits to hunt, fish, plant crops or just gather food.",
"Legalities aside, most people won't last more than two months in the wilderness. Yes, there's an occasional exceptional individual but *most* end up malnourished, both physically and emotionally. Watch the TV series Alone to get an idea of what the isolation and diet is like."
],
"score": [
53,
34,
7,
7,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPBJgpK0Ulc"
],
[
"http://www.criticalcactus.com/best-off-grid-living-documentaries/"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5xyvnk | Why would you deny the Holocaust? | With all the evidence we obtain from primary sources and other record, what reasoning could someone have to say that this tragedy never occurred? Thanks for any responses :D | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dem0lk4",
"delymjf",
"demcids"
],
"text": [
"No one with a brain denies that Germany rounded up Jews and other and put them into concentration camps, the part that is denied is that there were gas chambers used to systematically kill people. Usually they say that Zyklon B was used for delousing (killing lice). Lice were a big problem in concentration camps because they spread typhus (you've probably seen pictures of those really skinny camp inmates, that's from typhus). They point out that the gas chambers found in concentration camps would be very inefficient at killing groups of people (the rooms are long, they only have one door, bodies have to be taken upstairs to be cremated, etc). Some claim that it would not have been logistically possible to kill so many people in such a short amount of time. Holocaust deniers believe that the number of deaths in the Holocaust is much smaller than what people say, and that they were caused by typhus, hunger and other health problems in the camps. By the end of the war Germany was very low on supplies, so the conditions in the camp deteriorated. Sometimes they like to point to the fact that many European countries have laws against Holocaust denial. They say that if it were really so self-evident that the Holocaust happened as described then it wouldn't be necessary to arrest people for questioning it. Usually the motive for fabricating the Holocaust has to do with the creation of Israel. The Holocaust created sympathy for the Jews, and made antisemitism very unpopular.",
"There's a quote that stuck strongly with me: \"The people who claim that the holocaust didn't happen are usually the same people that wish that it did.\" If you're unashamedly an anti-semite, you wouldn't want to be reminded that anti-semitism was what caused the death of millions. So, in an ends-justify-means manner, the holocaust needs to not have happened in order to not invalidate their racism.",
"There seem to be different reasons for it between Europe and America. In Europe it's often people who don't want to see Hitler painted in a bad light; who are often Neo Nazis themselves who believe Hitlers envisioned globalist conspiracy and agree with his ideas about strong government and racial supremacy, but who may not necessarily condone the murder of entire populations. And so they consider the accusations of genocide as slander of their hero by the very same enemy he tried to fight: bankers, capitalists, globalists, Jews. Since this is considered to already come dangerously close to spreading Nazi ideology (and since that ideology was in all likelihood specifically designed to succesfully appeal to the paranoid underbellies of lots of angry people, and thus spreads very easily), it has been made a punishable offense to deny the Holocaust in public, yes. And rightly so IMO. In the US though there seems to be something else going on. Aside from the fact that people have this weirdly personal, moral stake in whether or not a genocide happened in a different country over 70 years ago, people seem to often have a somewhat skewed view of what actually went down. And a lot of the scepticism stems from this view not being entirely accurate. No, people weren't being shoved into gas chambers and exterminated by the millions. It just didn't happen that way. From what we have found in the camps' facilities they would have been going about it very inefficiently. Moreover, the envisioned gain of not having these people in the gene pool can't possibly have weighed against the logistics and resources such an operation would require. Nobody would organize such a thing for that sole purpose, however much they thought other races and disabled people were making their population weak. There are so many cheaper and more efficient ways they could have achieved that goal. The truth is a *little* bit more nuanced. Thing is, when they got into power, the Nazis started using political prisoners for forced heavy labor. Working conditions were deplorable. I remember a story about some railroad that had to be built under dangerous circumstances which took the life of about 20.000 prisoners, all previously rounded up because they were communists. That is *efficient*. You get work done that is potentially dangerous or unhealthy, and the people who die doing it weren't wanted in the first place. This is what makes the way the Nazis treated populations such a gruesome memory. The cold, ruthless, calculating way in which they decided each demographics' worth for society and what to do with them. Jews (among others) were no longer welcome in that society. Step by step, they were being exceedingly excluded from interacting with it until eventually they were herded into ghettos and left there to rot. Conditions were, again, extremely deplorable and many hundreds of thousands died there from disease and starvation. When war broke out, many people and resources had to be comitted to fighting it. One thing an army needs most dearly besides soldiers, is stuff. Ammunition, things like that. And people who make that for them by the millions. Luckily they had camps full of prisoners with nothing else to do. What's more, they had ghetto's full of Jews, Roma, gays, handicapped. Most of all they had a bunch of new territory with even more people ready to be plucked out of the gene pool. So they sent everyone to labour camps. To make bullets for them. Batteries. Clothes, soap, other things. And to be subjected to experiments for medical and military purposes. Now you had to be *able* to labour of course. Anyone who was too weak, too sick, too old or too young was, yes, sent to the gas chambers. They had no further use to the regime. And they killed a shit ton of people this way. The rest was living under, again, deplorable circumstances. Many died from disease and starvation. As the war started going badly for Germany, and started creeping towards a potential German defeat, institutions involved with the deportations tried to destroy all evidence of what had been going on. This included the concentration camps and anyone in it. So even more people were killed and dumped into mass graves. By the end of the war the death toll had risen into the millions. A number so astonishing for such a pointless reason, that right from the start there have been people who had trouble believing it."
],
"score": [
24,
21,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5y021e | The newly proposed health care plan | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dem8u2y",
"demizec",
"demriyi"
],
"text": [
"Unfortunately I don't think anyone can give you a proper ELI5 on this just yet. Here is why: Health care policy has to balance a lot of competing interests and interconnected problems. In order to explain what the effect of a law would be you need to get feedback on a number of fronts from a lot of experts and industry players, evaluate those claims, review the legislation yourself and consider them, and then reach a conclusion. Right now this legislation is simply too new to really evaluate intelligently. Some people might say: \"Well the intent is to allow people to buy health insurance even if they have pre-existing conditions; to make health insurance affordable by providing refundable tax credits; and instead of penalizing people with a tax fine for not having insurance, make insurance more expensive when they do get it as a penalty\" But the intent of Obamacare was to lower the cost of health insurance and stop companies denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. Obviously in fact it drastically raised the cost of health insurance. My, personal, initial impressions on the law is that, like Obamacare, it has a \"problem with reality\". It's stated objectives and methods could very well result in SEVERE unintended consequences. I do want to hear what industry has to say about this however, I want to read what other lawmakers have to say about this, and I want to read the law in much more detail after having heard those comments in order to make my own judgment. The one thing I would say for sure is this: With this health care proposal America is adopting the bi-partisan position that a true private insurance model for the provision of health care is impossible and that going forward health insurance companies are going to be providing care for everyone, with government setting prices, penalties, incentives and disincentives.",
"[The NY Times]( URL_0 ) has a good summary comparison between the ACA and the House Republican Bill. Was looking for something like this to make it easy to see the changes.",
"I think the main objective of the ACA was to get medical coverage to people who didn't have medical coverage because they could not afford it. They should have just said what they meant: \" Look there are a bunch of folks who don't have medical insurance, so we are going to take a chunk of tax money and subsidize their coverage.\" But instead they worded it like not only was that going to happen, but it was going to save us all a bunch of money. Nope. Either we have to be okay with the way private insurance works (or doesn't), or we just have to say screw it and have a single payer system and everyone is covered. I already pay about 25% of my family's income to taxes so if it is going to make me pay more then I am going to say heck no. If this can be achieved by somehow saving money within the current parameters of the budget and not cost me more then I'm gonna say heck yes. But we all have to be aware that medical treatment quality will eventually absolutely take a hit and weigh that against the benefits of having everyone covered. A worst case scenario example of this is the VA (veterans affairs). This is just an opinion, and as such, any one of you a**holes who throw a \"source\" after a lengthy opinion will be beaten about the head and shoulders with a wet noodle."
],
"score": [
23,
18,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/06/us/politics/republican-obamacare-replacement.html"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5y0lnv | Why have some religions such as Greek Mythology turned into mythology while other religions such as Christianity or Islam stayed prominent over the years? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dem9sux",
"dema651",
"demalg3",
"demaf55",
"deme831",
"demg7jq",
"demh6gc",
"demb8dk",
"demf02p",
"demgiym",
"demgx2a",
"demeuog",
"demgmcb",
"demgspx",
"demi24w",
"demh8xu"
],
"text": [
"They actually haven't, except in the public mindset caused from outright banning practice of many polytheistic religions in favor of Christianity. Shinto is still practiced and respected in Japan, and Greece legalized Hellenismos fairly recently. The populations are small, but they still exist, and try to argue against the commodification of the old religions.",
"Prominent religions have, in the past, tried to absorb or suppress other religions. Thus they've reduced their numbers either directly (elimination) or by absorption. Another part of this process is also discrediting of those religions, such as by portraying their venerated figures as demons or what have you, which is a possible origin for the popularized devil image with goat legs and horns as an example. This is surely not the only factor, but it's one of the more direct ones.",
"I think most religions still have followers, including Greek mythology. The biggest reason for Greek mythology specifically being largely abandoned is that it is entirely possible to prove it wrong. The Greek gods were told to be physical beings that interact with humanity on a regular basis. They also supposedly lived atop mt Olympus, which was impassable at the time. Nowadays, we know that there are no gods directly interacting with man, nor are there any living atop mt Olympus. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and many others are not so easily proven incorrect. They rely heavily on faith, which, by definition, is belief without proof. The God or gods in these religions or others don't directly interact with humanity ('God works in mysterious ways'), nor is there any physical place in which they are said to reside. There are reasons that certain religions that have the faith component died out as well, as other posts here have mentioned. Refer to those posts for information on those cases.",
"Christianity and Islam were both the state religions of two empires so they banned other religions while also incorporating elements of the previous religions (e.g. Christianity is influenced by Grecco-Roman philosophy). Judaism survived because both Islam and Christianity considered them \"people of the book\", i.e. they also used the Old Testament as a holy book.",
"Religions like Islam and Christianity actively sought to convert people, either through proselytising or forced conversion. Most polytheistic faiths, including ancient greek polytheism, were not concerned with converting people to their religion at all. Also Islam and Christianity became state religions of 2 very powerful empires, the Roman empire and the Islamic caliphate, which helped spread the religions.",
"I actually met a group of people who earnestly followed Norse gods. They were all uppity a year or two ago because they thought Ragnarok was coming. (It didn't)",
"The religion of the ancient Greeks and Romans were in many ways national religions. These religions were not thought to be universal in the sense that everyone should think that Zeus is the father of all gods. It actually didn't matter if all people believed in Zeus, but it did matter that they did not follow the customs associated with that god. So you didn't worship Zeus to understand the universe better, but to take part in customs that ensured you were taking part of Greek or Roman society in the right way. The idea that Zeus is connected to thunder is something that we focus on, but that was only one part of the god. Greco-Roman gods had different \"aspects\" that reflected a part of society. There was Zeus Oympios - Zeus as king of all gods - and there was Zeus Brontios, Zeus as thunder. But there's also Zeus Agoreus, Zeus the patron of the marketplace and punisher of bad traders, and Zeus Panhellenios, Zeus the god of all Greeks, and this is the nationalistic aspect of the god. A key aspect of Zeus was Zeus Xenios where he was a protector of foreign travelers - the customs of hospitality that this Zeus oversaw were crucial to ancient Greek society and culture. Later with the Romans, their religion became much more of a state religion where you would worship emperors and this worship was seen as being tied very closely with the success of the nation. Christianity became a big problem because Christians had a really hard time (huge undestatement) worshiping Roman gods, even for show. Roman religion was not about helping people, like Christianity was, but about helping the state or helping yourself. Christians started setting up organizations that were parallel to that state and they were fulfilling quasi-state functions with their welfare programs that were filling functions the state wasn't filling. So long story short - Greco-Roman religion was not universal. It was about reinforcing customs in Greek and Roman society specifically; these religions made no claim to be for all people like Christianity. You can think of Greco-Roman gods as being more like Catholic saints - they are patrons that protect people in some functions in society. They're local. So once those societies become less prominent, so did the religions. Christianity can stand on it's own and as we've seen, it has easily attracted people from all over the world in widely diverse societies with different customs.",
"I'm going to tell your a secret. When enough time has passed, current religions will also be considered mythology",
"[This]( URL_0 ) video actually explores your question, and it's a good channel. Hope it helps.",
"because they were easier to prove false. its near impossible to definitively prove that god did not create the universe or that reincarnation doesnt happen. pretty easy to prove the gods dont live atop mount olympus",
"I think this is primarily a misunderstanding. Mythology or Mythos refers to stories and fables not part of the religion but part of the culture surrounding the religion. Judiasm, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and so on all have a mythology. The greek religion has mythos too but is still a religion. The other people here are mainly wrong, \"mythology\" and \"religion\" are not synonymous.",
"It just depends on which religions the majority of the population follows. GRgeek myrhology took quite a hit when Christianity was rising in the Roman Empire, and has never recovered. I could be wrong, but it makes sense to me",
"The reason many of these religions fell out of favor is because the gods were too easy to disprove. For example, Zeus and his pantheon reside upon Mount Olympus. People have climbed Mt Olympus now, and can see no one is there. Religions that choose to heavily exploit 'god of the gaps' arguments have a lot more staying power. Christianity is very good at the 'god of the gaps' arguments, and Islam is learning from Christianity.",
"Most people here seem to argue that it is due to economy and 'Empires' that Christianity and Islam remained, when in truth this is plausible, it completely ignores a fundamental fact: **Judaism was a Religion that moved from Mythos to Logos**, no longer did 'gods' battle each other in order to explain changes in the ecosystem and the like, suddenly there was a spiritual and moral rule, an all-encompassing system that believed there to be one creator. Monotheism suggested there was an order to the world that could be understood. This allowed for more systematic world view that better reflected reality.",
"Because it's easier to believe in a single fairytale to explain everything than a bunch of fairytales to explain smaller parts of everything!",
"Asatru, the old Norse religion, is still knocking around in some from. Problem with a lot of the polytheistic faiths that came before Christianity is that their cultures had no (or minimal) writing, so not much of the ceremonies have survived to this day. So a lot of it is just made up now. Unfortunately Asatru has been somewhat co-opted by the far right in recent years."
],
"score": [
621,
155,
106,
59,
45,
34,
29,
12,
9,
6,
6,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/Fm1JS2EvAiY"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5y10pa | According to wikipedia many movies have far greater box office than their budget, yet are still considered financial failures, why? | An example, the Great Wall. According to wikipedia, budget = £150million, while box office = £320.2million. When I read these numbers, i think OK, the film did pretty good, yet people are saying the film has occurred losses ('the film is likely to lose about $75 million due to its underwhelming performance theatrically') Is it because budget does not take into consideration marketing/ advertising? So just how much is spent on marketing on a typical blockbuster like the Great Wall? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"demi2nv",
"demcq3y",
"demdgv3"
],
"text": [
"There is also 'Hollywood accounting' to consider which artificially, but technically legally, can make anything look like a loss.",
"becasue there is an expectation of a specific return on investment to those that put money into the movie. For the movie to actually be a success it needs to make enough profit over it's costs to cover the contractual payout to it's investors + some additional money for it to be a profitable venture for the movie makers themselves. in some instances once the investors have been payed there is little or nothing left for the studio, so even though it made more than it's costs, for the studio it ends up being a financial failure.",
"There are two reasons. 1) A lot of the \"box office\" money goes to people other than those who made the film. The movie theater gets a cut. People who worked on the movie get a cut. The company who distributes the film gets a cut. The exact split for each film isn't known, but in the US you can roughly estimate about 50% of the box office actually goes back to the studio that made the film. This varies a lot by country. 2) As yous stated the production number does not count advertising and marketing. For a blockbuster $100+ million is pretty common, and some recent films have been hitting $200+ million. About the only major market with low cost advertising/marketing is China, which is why it's becoming a very popular market with the studios."
],
"score": [
25,
14,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5y2fi6 | What are the differences between Obama Care and the American Healthcare Act? | Edit: ELI3 | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"demmu1r",
"demmq5l",
"demrdps",
"demrgmz",
"demv90m"
],
"text": [
"From what I have seen, it will slowly end the Medicaid Expansion. this is the part of the ACA that helped low income people afford healthcare. It will allow \"worse\" plans to be sold to people who don't want to pay for the more comprehensive plans in the current ACA marketplace. This benefits younger, healthier people. However, people who really need healthcare but can now only afford these substandard plans, they will not have the same coverage as with the ACA. It removes the tax on people who do not have healthcare, however, if you drop your healthcare coverage, and then decide that you want healthcare, you pay a tax, so the mandate is \"sort of\" there.",
"The proposed American Healthcare Act seeks to strip many of the advancements from the Affordable Care Act, such as expansions to Medicaid, and replace them *en masse* with a system of block credits and tax cuts.",
"I think the worst part of ACA is the mandate and high premium costs and especially the high deductibles. Honestly, I don't see how anyone can make it with a $10,000 deductible. I'm fortunate to be in the higher income range and I don't think we could handle that. It's not like you can take out a loan to meet your deductibles. Bad stuff.",
"1. It gets rid of the mandate. That means that if you don't have health care, you don't have to pay a penalty on your taxes. It does penalize people for letting their insurance lapse (with a 30% increase if they rejoin). So it incentives continuous coverage. 2. It begins to reduce the Medicaid expansion starting in 2020. 3. Ties subsidies/tax credits to age rather than income, and allows insurance to charge higher rates for old people than they can now. 4. It increases the income level for subsidies to $75,000 for an individual and $150,000 for a household. By contrast, an individual making over $48,000 gets no subsidy currently (and the other numbers depend on people in the household). 5. The GOP plan does not allow Medicaid money to go to planned parenthood. 6. It allows insurance companies and individuals to sign up for plans that don't provide the same minimum coverage that the ACA requires. Basically, young and healthy people can buy more of a bare bones plan if they want to. 7. Finally, large employers would not be required to provide insurance to employees.",
"There are certainly merits to that argument. But the entire system needs to be brought to equal playing ground. Raising minimum wage, high cost of pharmaceuticals (which we all know is absurd) high cost of medical school (not to mention college in general.) it doesn't work if everyone is money grubbing. My sister just had some elaborate back surgery with some complications. Her bill was over $400,000. You know the doctors and hospital don't get that kind of money. What bugs me (and I never did this when I determined charges) is padding the bill. Hey everybody! Quit playing games. I really hate that. I had surgery a few years back and there was a charge for an assistant surgeon. I told my doctor I never saw an assistant surgeon. She backpedalled quite a bit and then apologized. Gamesmanship. And it all stems from so called insurance."
],
"score": [
10,
4,
4,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5y30te | Why do old time actors voices sound so much stronger and gravely than men today? | I know about the mid-atlantic accent and that is not what I am referring to. I'm talking about actors like John Wayne, Ronald Reagan, Bing Crosby, etc. Almost all male actors had a very distinctive sound to their voice that you never hear today. Their voices echo and fill rooms in a very unique way that immediately lets you know you're watching an older movie with an old-time actor. Is it from the recording equipment? Does anyone know? I was once told that it was due to smoking cigarettes and that makes sense, but I find it hard to believe that everyone was such a chain smoker back then to such a degree. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"demu1jw"
],
"text": [
"I think smoking is a bigger contributor to that sound than you realize. In the 30's and 40's, cigarettes were considered cool, sexy, healthy. They were all over the movies, commercials (whether for tobacco or not), and well-accommodated and accepted in daily life. As many as [1 in 2 Americans]( URL_0 ) smoked, and [80% of all adults in the UK]( URL_1 )."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/health/20essay.html",
"https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/apr/01/tobacco-industry-marketing"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5y376f | Nike’s new "Pro Hijab" line will help Muslim women compete while staying covered. The hijab has the Nike "swoosh" on it. Does "branding" a hijab violate any tenets of Islam? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"demtzju"
],
"text": [
"I am not a theologian or religious scholar, so if anyone here is, please correct me, but as far I know, the Hijab comes from a regional(Saudi) interpretation of the Koran's passages on modesty, e.g. \"Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and be modest. That is purer for them. Lo! God is Aware of what they do. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their chests, and not to reveal their adornment.\" As Saudi influence in the Muslim world grew, more cultures started adopting their specific interpretations of the Koranic dress code. If you look at old art or photographs of non-Arab Muslim cultures, you'll see a lot more variety of dress. Anyway, to answer your question, branding a hijab should be no different from branding any price of clothing, since there are no scriptural requirements for the garment. It might run afoul of admonishments against pride and adornment, but it's not like taking the fringe off a prayer shawl."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5y3fel | Why, in old literature (pre 1900's) were women depicted as being prone to fainting/passing out? | Recently, I have read 2 classical literature novels: *Frankenstein* by Mary Shelley and *Pride and Prejudice* by Jane Austen. Many times, when frightening events happen in these novels, many of the women are susceptible to fainting/passing out. What caused this to happen more often in the past? Did it actually happen more often? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"demuzdz",
"demuy18",
"demuldy"
],
"text": [
"Women *did* faint more often in the past, but we're pretty sure three things motivated it. 1. corsets 2. stuff that turned out to be toxic 3. societal expectation The first was an especially bad culprit in eras were some major wasp waists were considered fashionable. Squishing your tummy means bad things for your lungs and bloodflow, and extended use could definitely not have good effects on the body. The second is due to a lot of makeup and other products containing substances that have since fallen into the \"oh hell god damn no\" category. Like arsenic being used in wallpaper. In the 1800s they knew the stuff killed you if you ate it, but nobody seemed keyed on the whole \"fumes\" thing and it turns out if you coat the walls in it the people who live in the room feel sick. And if you think that's a bad idea, try makeup with lead in it. Hopefully the idea isn't so scary that it drives you to drink, because the goddamn *wine* often had lead in it too. And finally, what society expected of women. Wealthy women were expected to be ladylike delicate flowers, and sometimes people felt they had to put on a show to be seen as such. An \"oh me oh my [thud]\" gives an opportunity for everyone to see what a dainty delicate lily you are.",
"Before nutrition was widely understood and nutritional supplements were widely available, many women suffered from anemia. Also, the high fashion of the day often restricted movement and took a long time to put on or take off. That made it hard to breath deeply, and often left women dehydrates as they would not drink so they would not have to use the bathroom. Anemic, dehydrated people who cannot take deep breaths are more prone to fainting. In addition, women were expected to be dainty and frail, the more so as you rose in social status. Undoubtedly to the extent fainting occurred, some of it was unconsciously or deliberately to meet those expectations.",
"Women back in that time period would wear corsets cinched pretty tight, which restricted their breathing. If something happened to where they over exerted themselves, got too hot, get scared, etc, they would faint because of it."
],
"score": [
24,
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5y3l4z | How did languages first start and develop | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"demy7wq",
"dendv6i"
],
"text": [
"Grunts groans and gestures is the leading working theory hahajus may mean food. Mmmhha is water just like most language as it progresses and travels they become changed and more defined. More sounds made more descriptive statements. This is also backed up by early human vocal structures",
"This is a really complicated and fascinating question actually. I don't have an answer for you and I would like to talk about one of the reasons why. Our larynx is what gives us the physical ability to talk. The larynx is a soft tissue and that means that it is not going to leave behind a fossil representation. Also, as far as the larynx goes, we pretty much have the same physical attributes as chimpanzees, yet chimpanzees do not have the same level of intelligent speech as we do. So first, it is hard to tell if ancient hominids had the physical ability to talk. Even if we assume that they did, that doesn't necessarily mean they did talk intelligently"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5y4qmi | Why do so many churches and banks claim to be "first"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"den9475",
"denho9c"
],
"text": [
"Marketing. You make more money with more people, if you are the \"first church of Jesus\" it sounds better. So if that means that a few more people come to you than the \"church of Jesus\" you make more money, and so it worth calling yourself the \"first____\" to try and get one more person in the door",
"I think for such traditional community institutions, organization that symbolize the stability (religious and financial) longevity is an asset and therefore marketed. Many people devote much of their community outreach and interaction in churches and store a large portion of their income/wealth either directly or indirectly in banks. Therefore, one would prefer to conduct such dealings in more stable organizations."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5y5dpv | What are the Vault 7 leaks? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dencvnq",
"denghxd",
"denrb6k",
"deni581",
"denqgzk",
"denr7he",
"denqgc3",
"denrxfo",
"denqp7h",
"denqve0",
"denry52",
"deojule",
"densaio"
],
"text": [
"Allegedly there were tools and documents, including malware (trojans and the like), RATs, methods of hacking and controlling people's phones, SMART TVs, computers, and other devices that relay through a network (possibly Alexa, Siri, Cortana, etc.) that were used by the CIA and shared with NSA, that were leaked to former intelligence agents. At least one, or of a handful of these agents had transferred the tools and documents to WikiLeaks. Supposedly, this is only part one of the 'hugest leak' in history, and WikiLeaks will be continuing the Vault 7 database through the month. Considering the amount of documents to go through, I believe it'd be safe to assume they've had these files for months now, considering it's as late as 2016 documents. What is scary is that WikiLeaks mentions that encryption on devices, such as WhatsApp, Telegram, are pointless due to the remote protocols that can take control of your Android or iPhone itself, thereby bypassing the app(s) themselves. Or that a user could have their files uploaded to a server right now, from their phone or computer, without knowledge, and presumably it wouldn't be identified through network mappers such as Wireshark. Leaks are not a rare occurrence in this day and age, as we've seen from Cellebrite's leak, and the Shadow Brokers' instances. While there are people that see WikiLeaks, and Julian Assange as being allies of Russia, or as being shady (Rex Tillerson, Roger Stone, etc.), there's no solid evidence, AFAIK, but due to this, people see this move as being political to draw away attention from the Sessions controversy, or further administrative actions. It would seem that WikiLeaks has been waiting quite a while to release these documents, so perhaps it is due to U.S. politics, or perhaps it is due to them feeling this to be the right time. People will note the Clinton emails being leaked out during the campaign, and see that as similar to this. This would be bias, and I am only stating that to show how people may and could see the leaks. It might be political, it might not. At this point, we should definitely be alerted and aware of this, because if such tools end up in the wrong hands -- with black hats, or even dumbed down for script-kiddies to use, it could be incredibly dangerous, especially with the rise of self-driving vehicles (WikiLeaks cites a tool used to control a person's car, though not much information is given. People were quick to jump to the conclusion that the CIA may have used this in the death of Michael Hastings, though it cannot be confirmed as of now.) I'm sure some of what I've written is wrong, but this is what I've gathered from a quick read of the Vault 7's ToC. Expect more to be uploaded -- over 8,000 pages which means it could take some time to see the true effect this leak will have, as people (if the tools themselves are uploaded), will seek to modify and use the tools for their own personal gain. You wouldn't need physical contact with someone's device, since everything could be done remotely. This is becoming quite scary. Hope that was good enough. I'm sure others could explain with far more insight, but :/ What can we do about the government surveillance? Not much. They're able to bypass encryption, control devices, search through our information (they can see usage data of your device -- meaning they can figure when you commonly use your device, and when you're commonly offline), record your visual and audio interactions, and upload your files to their servers all without you ever knowing. I could be glum and say privacy is dead.",
"[Vault 7 Explanation -Philip DeFranco ]( URL_0 ) Phil does a really good job of explaining it.",
"The CIA's hacker division kept all their notes, tools, procedures, documentations, ideas, etc on a central system (in this case, Confluence, JIRA and Stash). Some one downloaded a backup of the whole system and started passing the backup around a group of former CIA hackers and employees. One of these guys sent the backup to Wikileaks who are reviewing, redacting and publishing the entire trove of documents and tools.",
"Remember when the CIA claimed Russian hacking due to finding \"Russian\" malware on infected systems? From Vault 7: CIA can customize the \"fingerprints\" hacks leave behind and make it look like someone else did it. The evidence that we've seen for Russia hacking the DNC is this exact \"Russian fingerprint\" that we now know the CIA had the ability to implement in their hacks to hide their tracks. That fingerprint is now completely shoddy evidence. Not just because the CIA can put a Russian fingerprint on any hack, but because anyone else can too, because the CIA was so Clinton-esque with their security that all the \"fingerprints\" they collected were leaked to hackers and rogue agents. So, essentially, any legitimate hacker nowadays could hack the DNC then put Russia's \"fingerprint\" on the hack. That fingerprint is evidence of absolutely nothing, thanks to these new leaks. The CIA's Remote Devices Branch's UMBRAGE group collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation. URL_0 Reading about the capabilities of the CIA in Vault7 should put the Trump-Russia connection to bed. If Trump had any contact with Russia, the CIA would've known, and it would've been made public during the election. #NothingBurger",
"One thing came to mind ... Mariana's web / really deep web folklore possibly being true in respect for the cia and security services. It talks in the example of websites that only let you through if you have a certificate installed else it just shows you normal pages amongst all the other data they are pushing about. Stranger things have been true.",
"All I know is there better be a fallout reference in there somewhere or I'm going to be even more dissatisfied with the CIA.",
"Basically CIA decided to create bugs and viruses or expose holes in programming to hack and spy on American citizens with anything from Costco Routers, Samsung TVs, iPhones, Androids, everything.",
"The CIA spies on people. The CIA continues to find new ways to spy on people, and occasionally kill them. The CIA has been compiling methods that allow them to basically use the malware of foreign powers to make it look like a foreign power perpetrated an attack. Keep in mind that, while worrying, this is nothing 'new' as far as espionage goes. Forgery is kind of a big thing that spies do. Also, everything connected to a network is vulnerable - but we already knew this. People are speculating that the CIA has spied on US Citizens without explicit authorization but I haven't seen anything actually stating that based on the documents, so if somebody could point me to that it'd be great.",
"The CIA is focusing on getting information of foreign countries (non-USA), mostly by using people. The Vault7 leaks contains information about hacking tools the CIA has and uses. It looks like someone copied information from the internal CIA wiki (like URL_0 ), and leaked it to wikileaks (no connection to the other 2 wikis). The hacking tools includes \"viruses\" for Samsung TV's, which enables them to listen to conversations close to the TV, even though it appears to be off. It also contain a nice list of weaknesses in Apple and Android phones, Windows and Linux operating system. Some of these weaknesses are not known to anybody else, which allows the CIA to break into most phones (and thus using the mic, camera, GPS etc. to surveil a person or a group). It also mentions where they have the data from (e.g. GCHQ, or NSA, or public).",
"I remember getting laughed at about 5 years ago on reddit for bringing up the possibility someone else will be able to hack into your self driving car. I swear half of you follow the trend, the other half let other people think for you. Not so farfetched of an idea now, is it?",
"Just an FYI: Many researches believe that Wikileaks has been compromised. I just feel the need to put that idea out there.",
"CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY NO ONE IS COVERING THIS!?! The only places I can find covering this are far-right publications like Fox and Breitbart. What the fuck is going on!?!",
"I have to be honest, i find it hard to believe the CIA has these tools to monitor people remotely etc through smartphones at the level being claimed... these fuckers NEVER get anyone they want and i feel like they should be doing 100x the job they are if they could do all this shit. Like the saying goes: \"how do you know the CIA wasnt responsible for 9/11?..... IT SUCCEEDED!\""
],
"score": [
943,
261,
50,
31,
21,
16,
15,
13,
13,
9,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LBl2l76fp0w"
],
[],
[
"https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/#EXAMPLES"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"wikipedia.com"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5y5du2 | school vouchers - how do they work? Is it true that the program is the beginning of defunding public schools? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"denddk9"
],
"text": [
"Texas has one of the largest public school systems in the US and has many charter schools. The FACTS are public schools in Texas out perform charters in every category. Only in adminstrative pay rates do they blow away public schools. Scam to make $ for the few..."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5y5e6z | Why do newscasters need credibility if they're just reading from a teleprompter? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"denbey4",
"denhhaa"
],
"text": [
"The anchor typically has a history of being a journalist and they work with producers and others about which stories will run and interviews and so on. Beyond that, they're basically the face of the organization and so the stations brand relies heavily on that recognition. Yeah a reporter may have done the grunt work but it filters up to the broadcaster who people will actually see.",
"They're not just reading from a teleprompter--theyll often write the text for the teleprompter,ot they'll ask questions of somebody they're interviewing or they'll explain things with their own understanding. They may choose what stories are important and what the truth is. There are ALSO people who are just newsreaders, though--thry are just people who read things while having good hair. They need to seem believable and authoritative and trustworthy because that is the product the station is selling--people want the truth, so you hire someone who has the ability to convince people that what they say is true--whether it is or not."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5y74xe | How the names of the days of the week came to be | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"denojb9"
],
"text": [
"They are names of the gods. Monday is Mani's day, Tuesday is Tyr's day, Wedensday is Odin's day, Thursday is Thor's day, Friday is Frigg's day, Saturday is Saturn's day, Sunday is the Sun's day. English mostly use the corresponding Norse gods but the concept came from Greek where the Greek gods were used. This is why Latin languages use very different names then Germanic."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5y86eq | Why do film adaptations sometimes change things from the book that don't seem to make a difference? | i watched Fifty Shades Darker last night, one of the sex scenes took place at Ana's house, however in the book, that sex scene took place at Christian's house. Why do film adaptations change things like that? i get some things don't translate well to the big screen, or certain scenes can affect the movie's rating, but in this particular example, i can't think of a logical reason why they changed the location of the sex scene | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"denvq5p"
],
"text": [
"I don't know about this particular book/movie combination but I know of several others. Movies have a very limited time. They need to get the essence of the whole movie out in just 100 minutes or so. They worry more about pacing between key plot points. They may need to rearrange the order of things or combine characters or events in order to save time or prevent a lull. A book has the luxury of slowing down for a chapter. For this case, it could help seque the film from the previous scene and/or to the next scene. There's also issues with cinematography. Perhaps the director thought Ana's house worked better with the camera angles and storyboarding that he/she had in mind for the scene."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5y873g | Why isn't there an equivalent of "The Second"/"The Third", Jr./Sr., etc. for females? (Or, if there is, what is it, and why is it less common?) | Edit: Oh man, it seems so obvious now, haha. (Of course, historically, women would have taken the name of their fathers and so this issue wouldn't have arisen very often.) Thanks anyways, guys. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"denvs83",
"denvne4",
"denwzcb"
],
"text": [
"A woman would have historically taken her father's last name and then her husband's last name, so she wouldn't have had the same first and last name as her mother. Men usually kept their last names so there were more duplicates that needed clarification. It does also seem far less common for mothers and daughters to share a first name, but I can't really comment on why.",
"It's much more likely that females will change their name upon marriage, thereby ceasing to carry on the family name. Men typically keep their name after marriage so the line of names remains unbroken.",
"To be a \"Second\", \"Third\", \"Fourth\", etc you have to have the same First, Middle, and Last name of your parent and their parents/grandparents/great grandparents etc. Women change their names upon marriage so they do not meet the requirement of sharing the same last name. But it is common for First and Middle names to be passed down through generations. They just are not perfect matches so do not get the suffix."
],
"score": [
22,
9,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5y8d7i | Why are there so much anti-Semitism going on right now? | In the past couple of months, there have been tons of bomb threats on synagogues all over the US and vandalisation of Jewish cemeteries. Why is there an huge outburst of hate towards the Jewish community all of a sudden? I thought that all ended after WW2... | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deo3g1t",
"deo10n3"
],
"text": [
"I think its a combination of factors, namely the following: 1) People on the far right now feel more comfortable expressing their views. I don't think there's necessarily an increase in people who are anti-semitic, I just think they are more vocal now. The current administration should step up and denounce these actions more than they have been doing. 2) People on the left are using it as an opportunity to bash the current administration. Its a form of protest to smear the other side as being antisemitic. There have been arrests of non-whites (in NYC and other metropolitan areas posting antisemitic graffiti. TL;DR - Actually racists are more vocal now and radical leftists are using threats to smear the other side as being basically Nazis. This is the most unbiased answer I can give by examining both sides.",
"While I'm afraid I won't have a very satisfactory answer... > I thought it all ended after WW2 Not at all. The hate between Jews and Muslims comes after that, with extensive Jewish immigration to Israel and the establishment of the Jewish state. The Muslims regard this as a invasion, and refused to accept the existence of Israel, starting the first Israeli war to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state. Then the issues just grew more numerous: distrust, occupation, Hamas... None of these things will help bridge the gap between them. As for anti-Semitism in other circles, I'm not too sure. I think it's just caused by the same thing as before though: people blaming Jews for their problems and dumb prejudice."
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5y8q5y | What are the differences between U.K. Conservatives and U.S. Conservatives? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deo0eg7"
],
"text": [
"Complicated question but the short answer is that US conservatives are far more conservative than their counterparts in the U.K."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5y8te3 | Why is Einstein so much more famous than any other scientist in human history? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deo91nw",
"deo1ul9",
"deo1wdf"
],
"text": [
"There are cultural, political, and academic reasons for his popularity. 1) Cultural Albert Einstein was a cartoonists dream. His wild hair, stern demeanor, and eccentric behavior made him inherently interesting to the public and journalists. 2) Political He was a well-regarded scientist who fled Germany for the United States in 1933. His decision to become an American Citizen was played for propaganda purposes as evidence of American democracy's superiority over Naziism. He made it easy for the Allies to discredit Nazi racial superiority arguments by pointing out that the world's foremost physicist was a German Jew. 3) Scientific The theory of relativity was revolutionary in its day. He went on international public speaking tours to explain it for years at a time. He won a Nobel prize in physics. Even if it weren't for his interesting character and political value, we still would have read about him in school. The combination of these three contributed to the use of his surname to be synonymous with genius. That he lived in an era of film and photography makes him easier than, say, Issac Newton or Aristotle to hold up as a great mind. Einstein's estate is well managed and the use of his likeness and name for commercial purposes is very profitable. \"Albert Einstein\" earned $10 million in 2013, making him the world's 8th highest-earning dead person (Michael Jackson is #1). The proceeds of the management of his estate go to the Albert Einstein Foundation which, along with private donations, supports physics research, scholarships, and the maintenance of his personal archive at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.",
"In fields we don't have a great understanding of, we tend to over-elevate what we know best, and confuse fame with quality. The Mona Lisa is the best painting, Beethoven's Fifth is the best classical piece, Rolex is the best watch, Lamborghini is the best car. Many people who think these are the best would be hard pressed to name a second or third best in those fields. Einstein was a great scientist, but he was also a celebrity, and that was much as his contributions have made him the icon of the scientist.",
"He became famous during the era when (1) science largely determined who would win the world's largest war, and (2) the visual mass media (documentary films) had recently become much more common. And his look is very distinctive, and he was at the top of his field, and he chose to get involved in political commentary. And the kind of science he worked on was indeed one of the kinds must involved in winning the war (his work was used in creating the atomic bomb)."
],
"score": [
8,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5y9kh9 | Why do some styles of music tend to have longer songs, 5-10+ minutes, while others tend to be shorter, often less than four minutes? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deoafxq"
],
"text": [
"For one, the structure of the song is part of what defines its style, so there might be some redundancy in the question. Somewhat like asking \"why are there singers in operas?\" If there weren't singers, it wouldn't be opera. Here are some examples: 1. In modern pop/rock, most songs have a structure similar to \"verse-verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus\". This usually amounts to about 3-4 minutes. So the reason why pop/rock songs last 3-4 minutes is because they have the structure of pop/rock songs (see the redundancy?). 1. Other styles, such as progressive rock or metal, make a point of trying out new structures, which allows them to break a certain mold and have longer pieces. That's why prog rock and metal music have length scales of 10 minutes or more, but that's also why there's not a narrow range of lengths for these genres. 1. Jazz usually has a rather strict structure (similar to pop/rock), but leaves room for long improvisation in the \"bridge\" part, which can make jazz pieces last anywhere from 3-4 to 15 minutes (or more, depending on the ego of the soloists or the behavior of the audience). 1. Classical music contains a broad array of styles so I won't cover them all, but the reason why many classical pieces are long is because one piece is often intended for a whole concert. They are often divided in shorter fragments called movements (three or four), and each movement usually has a well-defined structure that makes it last anywhere from 1 to 30 minutes. Pieces that are separated in movements (symphonies, concertos, sonatas, quartets, etc.) often look like this: the first movement has a structure called \"sonata form\", which implies it must have two contrasting themes, followed by a development on those themes (variations, etc.) and a recapitulation which brings back the two themes in their original form. This is already pretty long ( > 10 minutes). The second movement is usually slow, which also makes it long enough (4-5 minutes or more). The third movement, when it exists, is usually the shortest because it's a dance, which is quick and light ( < 4-5 minutes). The last movement is fast and either follows the form of the first movement (sonata form), or it's a rondo (with \"verses\" and a \"chorus\", if you will), which makes it middle-length (5-10 minutes). One of the main functions of structure is to create expectations. This is common in all forms of art: the artist can then play with the public's expectations to cause effects and emotions. That being said, bear in mind that if you want your song to play on the radio, it must be short enough for many reasons (commercial breaks, mainly). That's why many of the most popular artists go for 3-4 minute songs. Edits: correcting my poor grammar of English-not-first-language guy. Edit 2: see /u/ChangloriousBastard's [comment]( URL_0 ) for the very true technical reasons that I omitted. Complementary to mine."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5y9kh9/eli5_why_do_some_styles_of_music_tend_to_have/deoaec6/?utm_content=permalink&utm_medium=front&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=explainlikeimfive"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5yaisu | What is the difference between a leftist and a liberal? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deohuyq",
"deotbvv"
],
"text": [
"A leftist tends to refer to someone who's more economically leftist (sometimes leaning communist/socialist, sometimes just prefers to have more regulations in the economy) whereas liberal tends to refer to someone who's socially liberal (feminist, sex positive, pro LGBT rights). Edit: for the person who downvoted me, it might depend on what place you're in since terminology is used differently in different locations. Where I live in though leftist usually refers to communism and socialism (and economic left) whereas liberal refers to feminist, sex positivity, PC, socially liberal.",
"I think it changes somewhat based on where you are. Leftist generally refers to someone who's somewhere on the left of the political spectrum and covers everything from the centre left to communism. It may or may not be used as in insult. A liberal, where I'm from, is someone on the centre left and, generally, supports the Liberal Party. Liberals are leftists but a leftist might not be a liberal. In the US, both these terms seem to be used a bit differently. Leftist is usually a derogatory term for someone who is anywhere from the centre right to communists. Liberal means the same thing as leftist. A liberal in the US wouldn't necessarily be seen as a liberal in another country."
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5yajmt | Why do men's dress shoes have crappy laces? | Why do dress shoes, or just nicer shoes in general, come with those shitty, rounded, waxy laces that constantly come untied and feel brittle and cheap? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deoi5pc"
],
"text": [
"Maybe to reinforce that they are only to be worn on special occasions and are not to be too practical. Also the reason why they are usually uncomfortable and terrible to have to walk long distances in. Form over function."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5yb0g0 | Why are ship names either italicized or in quotation marks but names of other modes of transportation isn't? | We have to italicize the names of ships, but individual planes, trains, and automobiles (didn't intend on making a movie reference) aren't. Why not? How is a ship name proper but another mode of transportation isn't? Thanks for any insight. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deomot5"
],
"text": [
"If the vehicle has a specific name, then it gets italicized. *Spirit of St. Louis* *Enola Gay* *Glamorous Glennis* *Fifi*"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5yb0k9 | I have heard that ranked choice and approval voting systems can be exploited by some types of strategic voting, what are those types of strategic voting and is FPTP also vulnerable to strategic voting in unintended ways? | ? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deolfz2"
],
"text": [
"I recall there are fringe cases in ranked choice (instant runoff election) where a vote that ranks a candidate higher can cause them to lose to a candidate which they ranked lower. It would be practically impossible for this to happen in a real election though. FPTP is still worse in pretty much every way though, as instant-runoff is effectively just doing many small FPTP elections at once, allowing the losers to choose again each time."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5ydd2c | Who is Webster and why is his Dictionary the most accepted and used dictionary by the general public? | To narrow down the question I want to know what makes it so that its definitions are the most accepted ones in comparison. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dep4ss3",
"dep6sow"
],
"text": [
"Noah Webster was the person who created the American English Dictionary around the same time that Oxford was standardizing the British Dictionary. His work was adopted by the US as the standard spelling for American words, so to Americans it is the authority on spelling and defining words. The Oxford English dictionary is the standard for the UK.",
"Websters Dictionary is only the standard dictionary in the United States. In most of the world the Oxford English Dictionary is the standard (and most widely available and accepted) dictionary. In Australia and New Zealand the Macquarie Dictionary is the standard dictionary (in Australia, the definitions of the Macquarie dictionary actually have legal force). As to why the Webster Dictionary is the standard dictionary within the United States, it's because Noah Webster was the first person to compile an exhaustive (ie complete) dictionary of English *as it was used in the United States at that time*. At one point, if you wanted to know how a particular word was used in America, the only book that could tell you was Websters Dictionary. As new American dictionaries were published, their quality was assessed against Websters earlier dictionary. Webster was an interesting dude actually. Perhaps most notably, when he was alive, everyone used so called English spellings. \"Metre\", \"colour\", \"gaol\", \"shoppe\" etc. Webster thought everyone was wrong. So when he compiled his dictionary, he spelled all the words however he thought they should be spelled, even though literally nobody in the US spelled these words this way. The influence of his dictionary is such that Websters spellings gradually replaced the traditional ones in America. That is why Americans today spell words differently to the rest of the world (such as \"meter\", \"color\", \"jail\" and \"shop\"). Other standard dictionaries developed similarly. In England, nobody cared how Americans used words, they wanted to know how English people used words. Fortunately the OED is an exhaustive dictionary of English as used in England. Since OED was the earliest of its type it became the standard in England."
],
"score": [
14,
10
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5ydfi9 | Why should I care if the CIA can spy on me? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dep5oiy"
],
"text": [
"Because they didn't ask permission. And just because they aren't currently interested in people like you, allowing them that power means that in the future they can change the rules and people like you could be of interest. Governments never remain benevolent for ever - if at all."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ydg3o | How does terrorist groups are able to brainwash fully grown adults so effectively? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dep8fyo",
"dep5i4e",
"dep5p6t"
],
"text": [
"They don't brainwash anyone. Rather, they exploit people's insecurities and desire for a higher purpose. It's no different than a cult or a gang. The world is full of damaged people: everyone from the seemingly ordinary guy next door who is secretly a sociopath to the drug-addled burnout on the street corner. People with serious issues- not necessarily mental illnesses, but underlying weak points in their overall psychological well being- tend to gravitate toward destructive decisions because they lack healthy sources of fulfillment. Young men join gangs because they lack a healthy home life and a gang is basically a surrogate family. Ordinary people get swept up in cults because they crave the feeling of being a part of something bigger than themselves. People with depression and anxiety self-medicate via substance abuse because those fleeting moments of happiness while drunk or high are worth the costs. Terrorism is no different. It is not a coincidence that we rarely see successful, emotionally balanced, socially well-adjusted people get caught by FBI stings. Most people who become affiliated with terrorism do so because they lack healthy ways to experience the things that make life rewarding. \"*I'm going to join the jihad. They'll feed me and pay me, I'll get to live with other devout Muslims, and one day I will die a glorious death as a martyr\"* says the unemployed, fatherless 20-year-old who doesn't have any friends and has never accomplished anything meaningful in his life.",
"They seek out the desperate, uneducated, and mentally ill. They convince them that all of their problem can be solved through their teachings. It starts out small, with highly charismatic recruiters befriending them. Slowly, they are introduced to others and the rhetoric begins. Peer pressure keeps them engaged and slowly this group and ideology takes over their life. It's just like any other cult.",
"Brainwashing is not as hard as it seems. It is particularly easy to brainwash those who already sympathize with you, are ignorant, don't have a strong support network, or have some other trait which makes it easy to limit their intake of information. But anyone can be brainwashed. Anyone can brainwash another person assuming you have enough of an influence to be able to begin changing the victim's thoughts in even the most minute ways. URL_0"
],
"score": [
11,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/brainwashing.htm"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ydojv | with websites like Expedia, and the ease of access to the internet, what exactly do travel agents do nowadays? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dep8u26",
"depa7nj",
"dep97u1",
"dep793l",
"depamgv"
],
"text": [
"My friend is one. She sells travel packages to people who just don't want to deal with it, and there are a lot of people like that. There are people who don't \"use the internet\" or \"trust the internet\", there are people who just want to go somewhere and don't want to bother with the details of finding a hotel, flight, car, etc. they just want to walk in to an office, talk to a real person and say: i want to take my family of 4 on a 2 week vacation in may, we want to go to Paris, can you get us there and arrange everything? There'd also people who are going on their first vacation, first flight, etc. to some people planning flights is hard. And finally there's also people who maybe don't have the confidence of organizing themselves. Maybe they don't speak the language that well. Maybe they're worried about shady hotels. Maybe maybe maybe. They provide a service to all of these people and more. My friend also hates her job because it's 99% a sales job. She's forced to upsell and to sell expensive packages. To an internet savvy person with some common sense you could arrange everything yourself for a better deal, but that's not their audience.",
"Travel isn't all about booking flights and hotels. We travelled to Africa a couple of years ago on an organised tour and used a travel agent. Three were a number of advantages to using an agent: - Agents travel to experience what they are selling their clients. They learn what the different companies offer, what's at different destinations and what's worth seeing. - they knew what countries needed visas beforehand and what could be walked into, they also organised it all. - they knew the currencies and how much of each we should have. - they knew how to get us those little things that make it special (made sure the for company knew we were on Our honeymoon) - we paid one bill to one company instead of little bits all over the place.",
"I want to add that travel agents allow you to book a holiday and pay it off slowly before it gets to your departure date (at no fee). If you're paying online you have to stump all the cash up front there and then (which for some people is not an option) This therefore makes it more attractive to people who like to book their holiday far in advance and find it hard to save",
"If something goes wrong, you've got a person to call who will do cartwheels to make it right for you. Any and all of it.",
"Tigured I'd throw in a perspective I didnt see mentioned yet: Travel agents make big bucks on buisness and groups. I just ordered a 3 week round trip for 40 people trough one because I could not imagine having to deal with making sure there were enough seats on the plane to book, finding reasonable hotels without much experience and booking bus companies that only deal in a foreign language. A travel agent did that for about $100. The rest of their profit were from comissions, and we actually made money using them because they found us cheaper tickets."
],
"score": [
35,
8,
7,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ydrzs | Why did so many Nazis flee to South America, prominently Argentina and Brazil, after WW2? What made that so much of a safer place to be than anywhere else? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dep84ut",
"dep8wpl",
"dep7zt9",
"depdl72",
"depewe1",
"depd3uy"
],
"text": [
"1. The Latin American governments were mostly neutral during the war. (Even Brazil, which did side with the Allies, only committed small numbers of combat forces.) Therefore capturing and prosecuting Nazi criminals was barely any sort of priority for the governments there. 2. Relative geographic isolation from Germany's WW2 enemies in Europe and North America. It's easier to get snatched by the Soviets or Americans if you're laying low somewhere in Europe versus in Latin America. That's not to say it made it *that* much safer- as the Adolf Eichmann operation proved- but it was a more secure alternative. 3. There were already German communities in some of these nations, particularly Argentina. This offered a opportunity to blend in and network with culturally similar people. Edit: spelling.",
"What on earth are some of these answers? The correct answer is: between 1885 and 1914, there was a large influx in European immigration, to Argentina especially. **Three million**, 100,000 of whom spoke German. Nazi war criminals could blend in and disappear.",
"Very far away from the crime scene of eastern and central europe without being too close to any allied countries. Plus those countries were very poor so a powerful man with money could become the mayor of his town fast as a lot of them did.",
"Many German companies such as Mercedes Benz had plants there. Many upper echelon Nazis were able to get fake papers and \"Transferred\" there by the companies to management positions.",
"Argentina was the second largest destination of European immigration in the 19th century, after the USA, and Brazil wasn't far behind -- so they had a ready-made ethnic Germanic population that fugitive Nazis could walk right into. And since their non-German neighbors hadn't been in a war with them, they assimilated with relative ease.",
"The Catholic Church were the ones who set up the rat lines to South America. It had a powerful presence there. The governments were all dictatorships anyway. And there is a little discussed dirty little secret: many of them had worked for the Ameicans in the aftermath of WWII providing them with their anti-communist intelligence networks or as strike breakers against unions and partisan groups to prevent them from participating in the post-war elections, and as the 50s rolled around their services were needed in South America. Klaus Barbie is a good example of this."
],
"score": [
649,
398,
47,
12,
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5yebuh | Why do restaurants serve small items on large plates? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"depgb9r",
"depc7yq",
"depg4ib",
"depp5bx"
],
"text": [
"People are chiming in with a bunch of wrong answers. The real answer is that menu items change frequently and there is usually a wide variety of food options on a menu, whereas the largest number of different kinds of plates I've seen at any of the restaurants I've worked at is 5. 5 different kinds of plates. The fact of the matter is that plates are a sunken cost. If the restaurant ever wants to buy new plates for any reason they have to shell out money for those plates. So what kinds of plates do they buy? - A large plate - A small plate - A small bowl - A large bowl - A specialty mystery item. Like a long plate or something. The one that juts out in my mind is we used to have a special sushi plate because sushi was SO popular - For comparison we had ~50 menu items. The menu items rotated every 3 months. We ordered new plates in batches of 150 as they broke. Everyone else is answering the question. \"Why is my food plated like it is?\" That answer (if the guy plating it gives a shit about his job) is to make the food appear to take up as much volume as possible while actually taking up as little as possible. To this end most restaurant plates are concave in design. But the answer to your question \"why do restaurants serve small items on large plates?\" Is probably because the small plate they have is too small. Why would they order new plates for a couple hundred to a couple thousand dollars (depending on the volume of plates they might want to buy) when they could just use a larger plate?",
"Some people go to a restaurant because they're terribly hungry and need to eat A LOT of food fast. But, typically, going to a restaurant is a social event, you're going with a date, or with co-workers / business people, or even with friends, and eating the food is often secondary to making a good impression on the people you're going with. The atmosphere inside the restaurant, the appearance and behavior of the servers, the visual presentation of the food on the plate, etc., these are all things that pretty much any restaurant will pay attention to, and even charge a premium for.",
"To be honest, it depends on the restaurant. A nicer restaurant will give you a bigger plate than you actually need so that it looks nicer than if the food is taking up all the space. Garnishes and sides will usually adorn the rest of the plate so that it looks as impressive as possible. Cheaper restaurants often are doing this because they haven't changed their plates and the food has been made smaller to cut cost. For instance, I used to go to a restaurant that served some really impressive looking steaks on big plates (as the example above). A while back they decide to cut costs and the steaks they started serving were smaller and the big plates looked like they were empty. They still charged the same, but the perceived value now was not the same. Later on they fixed this by replacing the current plates with smaller plates and creating a \"new\" menu. Now the food they serve you is still cheap, but the, perceived value is that you are getting what you paid for. Prices are still the same so I stopped going there.",
"Combining what /u/mpmmuirhead and /u/thereal_isaac wrote and adding some of my own insight. These are some of the ways in which a small item can end up on a large plate. Which reason applies will depend on the restaurant and the item. 1. Material Cost. It is cheaper to put the small item on a large plate that the restaurant already owns than to buy new plates that are more appropriately sized. 1. Menu Price. A small item may be placed on a large plate because of the menu cost. I see this often with things like scallops or prime fillet. I've even seen restaurants which charge by the size of the plate (e.g. Dim Sum). 1. Visual Appeal (Aesthetic). The plating of the item on the dish may be viewed as artistic and the additional white space of a larger plate can add to the appeal. 1. Course Uniformity. Generally speaking, dishes on the same section of the menu will be about the same size (there are many many exceptions). The idea here is that if a group of people orders a variety of entrees, everyone will get an entree sized plate. 1. Popularity. This is probably rare, but I've seen a restaurant move a dish from appetizer to entree because it was frequently eaten as an entree. The size and price did not change, but they did serve it on a larger entree plate (vice appetizer plate). This may also be done to use dishes of different sizes more evenly. 1. Food Cost. One way restaurants can handle rising food costs is to reduce portion sizes. A dish that looked perfect may slowly decrease in size over time until it looks \"too small\" on the plate. This is often (but not always) a sign of a poorly managed restaurants since menu prices should be increased before they get to this point."
],
"score": [
84,
26,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5yepv1 | international women's day and how I've lived 35 yrs without ever hearing of this before yesterday? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"depfve5",
"dephk0v",
"depgtju",
"depe64a",
"depgyq4",
"depfjkx",
"dephrlc",
"depglnt",
"depgx51",
"depgz5z",
"deph4om",
"depesug",
"dephrwl",
"depgxdv",
"depi6so",
"depihg1",
"depi6qn",
"depinyw",
"depiv0f"
],
"text": [
"I grew up in Russia. Not only it was/is a public holiday, it is one of the big ones. The message is completely different though. Instead of gender equality they celebrate women as delicate good looking creatures, emphasizing their weakness (the beautiful weak gender). Yes, women are actually called \"the weak gender\" (слабый пол).",
"I still remember when I was a kid in Russia and this day was crazy serious. Women would literally get pulled over by the police to be given a rose. Everyone had to drive with their lights on like it was the first day of school (before it became mandatory nationwide to drive like that). I had to call all my relatives that were female and congratulate them and wish them good health etc. I brought in chocolate for my female teacher. Many men went all out for this. Really the whole society went out, at least in the city I grew up in. When I moved to the US, no one celebrated and no ever really heard of it until the last few years. No one still celebrates it, more of a social media blitz and that's it.",
"You probably live in The US where it is mostly not a thing. I also lived a similar amount of time before hearing about it and then only because I had a German roommate who asked me how I was celebrating. I looked at her in great confusion because until a few years after the time of this conversation with the roommate International Women's Day just wasn't ever mentioned in the US.",
"Yep. According to Wikipedia, \"The United Nations began celebrating in International Women's Day in the International Women's Year, 1975. In 1977, the United Nations General Assembly invited member states to proclaim March 8 as the UN Day for women's rights and world peace.\"",
"Deadpool (2016) probably increased knowledge of it in America from inclusion in the holiday sex montage.",
"I went to an all-girls school. International Women's Day was a big deal. We dressed up as famous women (even the male teachers joined in), there were green, white and purple decorations everywhere, it was great!",
"International Women's Day is actually originally a Soviet/Eastern European day. It was made to celebrate the equal rights of female workers. It became especially important when on March 8th, 1917, the Russian Revolution first began. This event is the reason the day is now a public and celebrated holiday amongst many post-Soviet countries. The reason you're only now hearing about this is probably due the significant media attention that this day received this year. The reason you hadn't heard of it until now is the fact that its not really a part of Western culture and it actually finds its root in Eastern Europe.",
"You live in an area that it's not celebrated. It's been gaining more traction the past few years in some areas, like the US, which means it's more likely people unfamiliar with the day are going to hear about it.",
"Unfortunately we don't hear much about some holidays in the US unless the public sector gets a four day weekend out of it, or people are supposed to spend money on gifts and cards to celebrate it.",
"\"A men's day is not needed because there is already a father's day. Women's day is needed for equality.\" An actual comment featured in a finnish newspaper. I have no idea how such a sexist remark got on the news.",
"Depressingly, I'm sure that now this is gaining traction, it will be commercialised like crazy, and next year you'll be shamed into buying \"Happy women's day\" cards, roses, chocolates, and what ever else. I'm completely in favour of celebrating women and striving for their equality and safety, less so about companies profiting off the back of this.",
"Well according to the website, international women's day is \"a global day celebrating the social, economic, cultural and political achievements of women.\" Not knowing you, I have no idea how you've never heard of it. I would say I only heard of it a few years ago; and then it was through Richard Herring's yearly super-hero like twitter replies to people who don't remember how to google.",
"In America our corporations haven't been able to figure out a way to cash in on International Women's Day so it doesn't get as much attention as more expensive holidays like Halloween or Thanksgiving.",
"Maybe you haven't been living in the eastern block? :D",
"Canada reporting in. Heard about it my whole life. Get \"Happy women's day \" from almost evey other women.Not from men.",
"In Poland it is big day. It is not celebrated as \"equality\" day. It is celebrated as women day. In my company everyone bought flower for every girl. Girls had tens of flowers around them.",
"Women's day is also huge in China. It is not a public holiday but on the day we all will show respect to the ladies, even buying gifts for the mothers/GF/wives. Depending on the industry or company culture, female employees may go home earlier as well. It has to do that the communist party of China has always been strongly committed to gender equality.",
"it's an eastern block thing. it survived the collapse of communism and is now kinda like valentines day - if you dont buy your wife flowers ur dead.",
"We are hearing more about it this year, because for SOME reason (wink wink), women are more passionately standing up for themselves these days. It's possible they don't love being denigrated. Plenty of (real) men support this cause."
],
"score": [
576,
259,
163,
107,
100,
84,
43,
36,
31,
21,
19,
14,
12,
9,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5yex3e | Why is body autonomy a right? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"depffom"
],
"text": [
"The entire concept of rights falls apart if you don't generally have control over your own body. It doesn't matter if you have the right to free ~~speed~~ speech if I can take your vocal cords."
],
"score": [
9
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5yfck6 | Besides from the obvious intrusion of privacy, why should the average law abiding citizen be concerned over the spying by the CIA? | Or why can't/doesn't the Supreme Court step in and do something about it? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"depiiaj"
],
"text": [
"For the government to follow the rules is very important as the rules are the only control the people have over their government. If rampant disregard for the law is allowed to exist within the government then the population becomes ruled by it, not the people. > Or why can't/doesn't the Supreme Court step in and do something about it? The Supreme Court decides court cases and interprets the law. It isn't some magic bullet to fly out and fix wrongdoing wherever it rears its head."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5yfhqc | Why do football team supporters fight each other? (UK) | I don't know if this is common in other countries, but in the UK the supporters of football teams fight each other. Usually it's planned, like they go to a certain location and get into a massive fight... But why? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"depk253",
"depjkhz",
"depl74y"
],
"text": [
"I did this once, and to try and explain it - there is no where else in society where violence and aggression is tolerated. You cant just yell and scream at work, and if you do a meeting will probably be scheduled with the HR lady. Going to football, you can pay 50 pounds for the right to hate those fuckers rights there. God every thing about them is horrible, and a nice song has been made about it wankers. Its an extension of these, a place where both hate and violence is tolerated in a fixed setting, and everyone there is \"not civilians\" There are rules, no weapons or stomping on peoples heads. And lastly, when you do get hit in the head really hard - you suddenly know exactly what you want. - its a strange feeling of clarity. Afterwards you go have a beer with your WAR BUDDIES, and you tell stories of valor and glory - or it looked funny when mike got hit in the face. Its primitive as fuck, and the only reason where this sort of caveman behaviour has a place.",
"It is also a problem in other countries. I think that these people take things to serious. I mean, at the end of the day its just a sport and you won't have any disadvantages if your team loses. Just calm down and enjoy the sport.",
"These days genuine football violence is much more common in e.g. Brazil or Eastern Europe than in the UK - see [here] ( URL_1 ) for a global overview from 2013. In some parts of the UK, the team rivalry is inextricably linked to cultural and ethnic divisions, most famously in Glasgow where Celtic = Irish/Catholic and Rangers = Scottish/Protestant. In other parts of the UK the rivalries have subsided over time e.g. Edinburgh (Hearts vs Hibs) or Liverpool (Liverpool vs Everton, where the rivalrly was [debateable] ( URL_0 ) )."
],
"score": [
9,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer/english-soccer/question-of-religion-as-basis-for-support-still-contentious-1.1655070",
"https://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/dec/19/football-violence-view-around-world"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5yfjps | Progressivism vs. Liberalism - US & International Contexts | I have friends that vary in political beliefs including conservatives, liberals, libertarians, neo-liberals, progressives, socialists, etc. About a decade ago, in my experience, progressive used to be (2000-2010) the predominate term used to describe what today, many consider to be liberals. At the time, it was explained to me that Progressivism is the PC way of saying liberalism and was adopted for marketing purposes. (look at 2008 Obama/Hillary debates, Hillary said she **prefers** the word Progressive to Liberal and basically equated the two.) Lately, it has been made clear to me by Progressives in my life that they are NOT Liberals, yet many Liberals I speak to have no problem interchanging the words. Further complicating things, Socialists I speak to identify as Progressives and no Liberal I speak to identifies as a Socialist. **So please ELI5 what is the difference between a Progressive and a Liberal in the US? Is it different elsewhere in the world?** PS: I have searched for this on /r/explainlikeimfive and google and I have not found a simple explanation. **update** Wow, I don't even know where to begin, in half a day, hundreds of responses. Not sure if I have an ELI5 answer, but I feel much more informed about the subject and other perspectives. Anyone here want to write a synopsis of this post? **reminder** LI5 means **friendly, simplified and layman-accessible explanations** | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"depksa2",
"depygco",
"depwiyr",
"depmq7f",
"depo15g",
"depon6d",
"deptl3n",
"deqkblm",
"deqhl87",
"deqnq14",
"deppa7o",
"depo67a",
"deqdgnv",
"depync9",
"deq1s0h",
"deq52j8",
"deq3net",
"deq7cjm",
"deqb0wk",
"deq3r3o",
"deqwmg1",
"deqb072"
],
"text": [
"There is political theory, and there is just what people call themselves. In theory, one can describe three ideological axes (or more, but these three are relevant to this question): Liberal vs. authoritarian, conservative vs. radical, and progressive vs. regressive. Liberal means power is distributed while authoritarian means it is concentrated, but does not speak to how the power is used. Conservative means change should be minimized while radical seeks extensive change, but does not speak to what the change should be. Progressive seeks to distribute material resources (or more nebulously, social value) while regressive seeks to concentrate material resources (ditto). \"Libertarianism\" would in theory be liberal, conservative, and regressive. \"Socialism\" in the old Soviet sense would be authoritarian, radical, and difficult to define on the third axis because while material output is distributed the capital is concentrated all into the hands of the state. *Democratic* socialism would be liberal, radical, and progressive. \"Conservatism\" as defined in US politics would be authoritarian, radical, and regressive, while \"liberalism\" in US politics would be liberal, conservative, and progressive. \"Liberal\" in European politics does not refer to power in general, but rather specifically to minimization of economic regulation, but does not particularly concern itself with other forms of power. It is somewhat of a synonym for \"neo-liberal\", although this term is nebulous in itself. \"Conservative\" in Europe usually means authoritarian, conservative (as opposed to US \"conservative\" radicalism), and regressive. In other words, to answer your summary question, Liberal and Progressive in US politics are often used as synonyms, but *can* be used to distinguish between someone's issue emphasis - whether they are focused on economic distribution and social equality, or on fighting authoritarian government policies. People who see both as highly important will just call themselves by either name, or even combine them as liberal-progressive.",
"I don't really like replying to threads on big subs when there have been so many comments already, but I feel obliged to since all the comments are lacking in one way or another (e.g axis theories of political ideology are hack because ideology does not lie along a neat spectrum.) There is a difference between 'progressive' and 'liberal', which is based in what each stand for. **As a general rule of thumb, from a technical perspective all liberals see themselves as progressive, but not all progressives see themselves as liberal**. This does not apply in all circumstances but is generally true enough to hold. First, a quick caveat to get out of the way - the US population is bad at political terminology, and as such 'Liberal' is basically synonymous with 'more left wing (whatever that means - it can vary massively depending on the person) than the current regime'. However, the very concept of Liberalism, worldwide, refers to an ideology which values human liberty and equality. 'Liberty' and 'equality' are both very vague concepts, however, and as such Liberalism tends to be an umbrella term which can refer to almost diametrically opposed ideologies. The biggest split is between those who value [Negative liberty]( URL_8 ) (heuristic: 'the freedom to fuck people over without constraints'), and those who value [Positive liberty]( URL_2 ) ('the freedom to not be fucked over', and to achieve one's personal will). Generally speaking, those two camps are referred to as [classical liberals]( URL_3 ) and [social liberals]( URL_1 ) respectively. However, despite both being liberal ideologies, the two can often disagree more than they can agree. For example - take something like [Standing Rock]( URL_9 ). A classical liberal might argue that Dakota Access should have the liberty to build it's pipeline. However, a social liberal might argue the opposite - that the pipeline will damage the liberty of the residents. Hence classical liberals tend to oppose state intervention, whereas social liberals are much less scared of it. [A quick interjection: [Progressivism]( URL_4 ) states that advancements in technology, science, etc - but, most importantly, social justice - are key to increasing human happiness. It's not really a true political ideology due to it's vagueness, but it's in opposition to [Reactionary politics]( URL_0 ), which favour a return to the past, and [Conservatism]( URL_5 ), which generally defines itself by opposition to change. I only realised once I finished this post that I hadn't defined these, and I couldn't slot it in anywhere else, but it's kinda important to know.] Both ideologies of classical liberalism and socialism liberalism, however, are united in their defense of the economic system of Capitalism. I could write for a long time about this, but to cut a long story short: Socialism, as an umbrella of political ideologies (like liberalism), was born from Liberalism and considers itself to be more dedicated to human emancipation from suffering by virtue of opposing Capitalism, which Socialists see as exploitative. Hence some Socialists consider Liberals of every flavour to be anti-progressive, since they support Capitalism. Some liberals (especially some classical liberals, who tend to ally more with the Right wing) may in turn suggest that Socialists are anti-progressive - but in general terms their objection is more the bog standard 'nice in theory not in practice' tedium rather than because they perceive Socialism (which, again, is extremely broad - ranging from [Libertarian Socialism]( URL_6 ) to [Marxism-Leninism]( URL_7 ), aka Stalinism) as not Progressive. As such, in this sense, we can _generally_ say that **all liberals consider themselves progressive, but not all progressives consider themselves liberal**. Specifically with respect to Clinton, I think she was just expressing a personal preference or personal definition more than actually adhering to either of these ideologies. Let me know if you have any further questions.",
"Glad to see some discussion on this. As an Australian living in the US, I'm constantly having to explain it when I'm talking about politics and happen to mention that the Liberal Party (in Australia) is actually the most conservative/right wing of the major parties. In the US, people think \"liberal = progressive or left wing\", but it's not that simple. The Liberal Party in Australia is called that way because they are *economically* liberal. They are laissez faire capitalists, believing in open and free markets and minimal government intervention in business. The party who leans towards lower taxes, less red tape and restrictions on companies etc. Freedom from government ... that sort of thing. This aligns them more with the Republicans in the US. But that's liberalism to us, or rather, economic liberalism. But they aren't socially liberal. They are conservatives on that front. I'm constantly having to intersperse comments like \"the Liberal Party, *which by the way is conservative*\". This comes up often in the usual debate over gun control, in which it is noted that the Prime Minister that enacted Australia's current gun laws was \"Prime Minister Howard of the Liberal Party\". People in America go \"well duh, of course liberals would support such a thing\". No, the Liberals are conservative and PM Howard was one of our most conservative prime ministers ever. A quick Google suggests that Canada is similar to the US, in that the incumbent Liberal Party is a socially liberal and economically progressive one. The equivalent in Australia would actually be the Labor Party ... and the Liberal Party would be their opponents. TLDR: the meaning of the word liberal has been twisted in the US and doesn't mean the same thing as in (some) other places. You're better off using 'progressive' instead if you want to talk about the kind of socially progressive policies espoused by 'liberals' in the US.",
"The problem is that political ideology change over time, but also between countries. At the very core Progressivism is all about the idea of progress. Progress in technology, social organisation, improvement of human condition, etc. They always want to go forward and everything need to be improved. Liberalism core idea is liberty and equality. They want to protect right and freedom first and foremost. Most of the time they both agree. For example they will both fight for the rights of minorities. Liberal will fight for minorities to gain rights and equality in the country, while progressive will want improvement of the condition of minorities, they want the society to progress. But where both clash is when progressive are ready to limit some freedom or right for the sake of progress. For example, instauring quota of woman in a parliament or putting in place limitation of free speech when it come to hate or aggressive speech. For them the end justify the mean if you want. They are ready to limit some freedom or rights because their end goal is to progress toward a better society. Liberal also want to progress toward a better society, but they put freedom and rights above. They want to have more woman in a parliament, but can't get behind quota. They are ready to fight for the right for people to free speech even if they dislike their speech. Of course. It's a lot more complicated than that. There is a lot of nuance toward each situation and there is more than just one flavour of liberalism and progressivism. And like I said, the stance on specific situation could chance depending on different country.",
"They're not actually meaningful descriptions, in the context of Western politics. They're labels for party affiliation, rather than being actual descriptions of a [philosophical position]( URL_2 ). The reason Hillary eschews the term liberal is because in the 1970s, a bunch of [violent]( URL_0 ) [radicals]( URL_1 ) took the label and applied it to themselves, making it very, VERY unpopular with people who are now in their 60's and over. Really, all domestic policies devolve into two simple questions: 1) Should the government intervene to address < issue X > . 2) If so, how? Issue X can be any controversial domestic question: Gun violence, poverty, abortion, internet peering policy, growing sugar, terrorism, flag burning, import competition, drug abuse... Each party's position (of whether to intervene) will change radically, depending on the issue, and they'll even trade positions over time. That's how the Democratic party has found themselves defending free-trade policies passed by mostly Republican votes. At the time, it was a bipartisan bill which encountered most of its opposition from Labor Unions, a group which aligns itself with Democrats. Political parties are brands, and their job isn't to be philosophically consistent, their job is to appeal to voters, while differentiating themselves from the other brand(s).",
"/u/KubrickIsMyCopilot laid out really well stuff involving the political spectrum and theory, so I would just like to provide what they're saying with some context and examples on specific issues where progressives and liberals often find disagreement currently. Some of the disagreements are just a matter of degree, but there are other issues where the two may have very different ideas about the role of the government and free markets. 1) Healthcare - Most progressives in the US today are advocating for a single-payer system. Meanwhile, most liberals would like to continue along the track of Obamacare, in which insurance is still privatized, but it's subsidized by the government for those who can't afford it. In between these two ideas is something like a public option. 2) Education - Most progressives today are advocating for public college tuition to be paid for through some form of taxation in order to provide it for \"free\" to *anyone*, just like public K-12 education. Meanwhile, like with healthcare, liberals usually are content with creating programs that make college affordable - but not free - *for those who need it*, through things like grants, subsidies, and loans from the government. 3) Social Issues - On most social issues, progressives and liberals are basically in alignment, although there may be some debate as to how radical they are. For example, at least among my progressive circles, we were rather amused by the antifas punching alt-right leader Richard Spencer. Meanwhile, liberals responded to it with, \"Even if he's a Nazi, we shouldn't be violent against him.\" 4) Privacy Rights - Progressives are staunchly against the Patriot Act and fourth amendment violations. Liberals, or at least Democratic politicians, have been more willing to forsake privacy for security. 5) Foreign Policy - Progressives tend to be rather isolationist when it comes to getting involved in conflicts in other countries. Consider Bernie Sanders's declaration that the Syrian conflict is a \"quagmire\" that the US would be better to stay out of. Meanwhile, liberals, such as Obama or Hillary, are more willing to get involved.",
"In simple terms, the only real distinction here is socialist and liberal. Progressive loosely alludes to a set of goals like universal health care, income inequality, etc., but the two differ in how they believe it can be accomplished. Liberals think it can be achieved through (regulated) capitalism, socialists - ultimately - do not. Now within the liberal space you have two distinctions: liberal on the \"left\" and neoliberal on the right. Neoliberalism is an odd term, because in the 90s it was used largely as a pejorative for Reagan's trickle down economics, which most reputable economists agree has been responsible for the wide swing in income inequality. Of course the truth is that neoliberal politics today aren't all that different from conservatives of the Reagan era: privatization of public goods, international free trade, deregulation, etc. And this is where the dividing line between liberals and neoliberals comes in: neoliberals don't want progressive ideals. Universal health care is a public service - they don't want those. Income inequality requires a lot of regulations on both corporations and international trade - they don't want those either. The Clintons are your prototypical neo-liberals.",
"There are a ton of great answers here explaining the philosophical and historical definitions, but most are ignoring one important aspect: barely anyone in the general population (in the US) uses those definitions. Back in the 2000s, \"liberal\" and \"progressive\" were used interchangeably by most people, with most people defining those concepts based on political party lines. \"Liberals/progressives\" were Democrats while \"Conservatives\" where Republicans in the eyes of the common man (\"moderates\" were simply those that had views from both parties nearly 50/50). It was really that simple, though very inaccurate. Why has that changed? Well, because Bernie Sanders ran on a platform further left than Hillary. At his rallies Bernie said that Hillary shouldn't consider herself a progressive due to her relatively moderate views. Of course, Hillary and her supporters disregarded this as a frivolous attack. Now, the Democratic party is somewhat split and undergoing change (just as the Republican party is). Bernie supporters, self-proclaimed \"progressives\", see the term Liberal as too far right, as a representation of the Democratic establishment (and everything wrong with it in their eyes). Hillary supporters still see the two terms as interchangeable, just as Hillary did. This is why \"Liberals\" are willing to call themselves as Progressive while \"Progressives\" usually reject the term Liberal. Again, other people explained the philosophical definitions perfectly, but this is how I see the dynamic in the US. You should go back to your friends and see which ones voted for who during the primaries, because I'll bet that the dynamic above applies to your social group.",
"Dave Rubin, a self-proclaimed liberal, does a great job explaining it in [this]( URL_0 ) video. People often think that a progressive is just a more extreme liberal, but that's not the case at all. Progressivism is essentially the exact opposite of what \"liberal\" has meant throughout history. Liberalism is about individualism, whereas progressivism is about collectivism. A progressive strives to do what he thinks is best for society or for the collective, whereas a liberal believes that there's nothing more important than individual liberty. That's why it's so bizarre how the word \"liberal\" is used today. Leftists/progressives are not liberal. Modern day libertarians and ideological conservatives have far more in common with classical liberalism than the modern progressive left does.",
"I had a friend who identifies as progressive/socialist explain it to me. He said liberals are mostly just talk and like to think they are special for having liberal thoughts, but at the end of the day are materialistic, upper middle class consumerists. Progressives are social agitators who actively seek a massive shift in the socio-economic order and are not interested in compromise.",
"Zones: URL_1 Description: URL_0 This chart is an interesting take on it. Check out the political compass website for an explanation on how to read it. In my understanding, these are the zones that most relate to the political science definition of each theory. When lay people refer to these zones they are often talking about their personal understanding of the term without having a strong understanding of the theory. That is why you can have conservatives with completely different views in different countries or even in the same one. Edit: quick rundown for those who don't want to go to the website for an explanation. The right-left axis describes the degree of economic freedom/control where the very right is pure and unfettered capitalism and the far left is central planning. The top-bottom axis describes personal freedom/control where the top is authoritarianism and the bottom is anarchy. All the zones describe some combination that make up the structure of society without describing specific policies. Edit 2: direct link to the description of the political compass.",
"Certainly in the US, and more generally speaking labels seem to have lost their original meaning, sometimes by design, and sometimes because of a concept called the [Overton Window]( URL_0 ). It is generally more useful to compare what someone or a political party says and does than how they label themselves. In many parts of the world, and certainly in Europe the word progressive is not used that much, you are either left-wing or right-wing or centrist. You have (democratic) Socialists, Liberals, and Conservatives, and subdivisions among these movements. It is for example rare to still find a major Democratic Socialist party in Europe that actually advocates for public ownership of the \"means of production\", something that is generally understood to be one of the pillars of socialist thinking. Classical Liberalism is a school of thought focused on (personal) liberty, and therefore also personal responsibility, this can include the belief in quite extensive economic freedoms. This can lead to misunderstanding when Classical Liberals seem authoritarian/conservative in the way they want to deal with those that infringe on others liberties, or reject a shared responsibility and solidarity with the less fortunate, the disadvantaged, or those with medical conditions and the ill. Then you have Social Liberalism, which combines elements of socialist thought with classical Liberalism, and generally means a belief in economic freedom, personal liberty and responsibility, with some form of solidarity and shared responsibility. This is probably how one would define the modern Democratic party establishment. The problem I see with the label Progressive in the US is that you have modern democratic Socialists, in other words those who don't actually believe in public ownership of the means of production, who label themselves as progressive to escape the stigma in the US that is associated with the term Socialism, and you have Liberals who label themselves progressives in a attempt to (sometimes falsely) emphasise that they are Social Liberals and not classical Liberals.",
"I'm seeing most of the top answers seem incredibly biased, so I will attempt to give less inflammatory definitions. As others have said Liberal is the opposite of Authoritarian. Liberal believes in minimal government intervention (either good or bad) and Authoritarian believes in more government intervention (either good or bad). Both major parties in the US are predominantly on the Authoritarian side of that line, although neither would admit it because fascists give authoritarianism a bad name. But both parties believe in a very large government that is very heavily involved day to day life. They just differ on some of the aspects they want intervention in. Progressive is the opposite of Conservative. Progressivism is the idea that it is the governments job to drive progress. This can include imposing social changes before they are popular (such as the transgender issues now), redistribution of wealth, picking winners in the economy (e.g., subsidizing green energy), things like smoking bans/sugary drink bans/excise taxes/etc. to force people to make healthier choices, and so on. But those changes could also be very bad, the Nazi party was very progressive because the government drove massive societal changes. Conservatism believes it is governments job to mirror society and somewhat resist change. In their view it is societies job to change and the government follows. A conservative government resists change whether good or bad. Because of this progressive and conservative are more or less a divide between people who trust the government and distrust the government. Bernie Sanders is very progressive because he thinks that government can and should be the engine that drives society forward. Ron Paul is very conservative because he thinks that government is inherently inefficient and corrupt so it should be limited to following society instead of leading. But the terms conservative and liberal have both kind of become twisted in common use. Liberal in the US is used largely as a synonym of progressive. Progressive has even become an official definition of liberal as someone else posted. Conservatism on the other hand has kind of been taken to the extreme and now fights to undo changes, some being pretty old changes.",
"Both the Democratic and Republican parties have their roots in classical liberalism. However, in the US a modern liberal is someone who supports private property and the capitalist mode of production but also supports specific social safety nets like minimum wage, universal healthcare, and might consider themselves a progressive in that they believe advancements in social organization are necessary to improve the human condition. Bernie Sanders, a social democrat despite what he calls himself, is a left leaning liberal progressive. Hillary Clinton is a right leaning liberal but I would argue not a progressive. As a Marxist I would be considered progressive, but I am not a liberal because I do not support private property and the capitalist mode of production.",
"Liberal used to mean (very early 20th century and previous) something very different than what liberal means now. A classical liberal is for free market capitalism and very small government. Today's liberal is almost the opposite. URL_0",
"No offense to other users but here's my take on a true ELI5 (i.e a little simplistic) answer to this. Progressive means ever changing. To progressives that change represents progress. To conservatives that change represents decay. The opposite of a progressive is a conservative. Now as u/KubrickIsMyCopilot pointed out there is what people call themselves and what the terms actually mean in the context of political theory. A \"liberal\" in today's context is someone who has a set of particular ideals, or at least a consistent theme in their ideals. Equality both economically and socially is in my opinion the defining characteristic of a liberal. Now in the past, like hundreds of years ago, \"liberal\" referred to what is now called classic liberalism. And there is still a connection between classical liberalism and modern liberalism of course, but around the early to mid 20th century \"progressives\" sought to remedy the ills of liberalism. Or to \"progress\" liberalism. Classic liberalism as it existed in that time is essentially what we would call \"libertarian-ism\" today. Now I say essentially pretty loosely. Libertarians can take many forms today, but what I mean is if you read John Locke, Montesquieu, Thomas Paine, etc they will be pretty familiar as \"libertarians\". Now like I said in the early to mid 20th century progressives wanted to modify our understanding of liberalism. They mainly wanted to incorporate the political philosophies developed in the 19th century (classic liberalism was developed in the 17th and 18th centuries) as a reaction to classic liberalism or better yet capitalism (Capitalism is essentially the economic system of classic liberalism). Think Karl Marx for a simple view. Not to say all progressives were communist, but there is a strong collectivist streak in progressive values, and a very Marxist methodology in the way progressives understand society (Think about concerns like patriarchy and racism. Progressives are inherently suspicious of the effect power disparities have on the social norms and values we accept) So at that time the \"liberals\" who did not want to embrace those values, the ones who still held true to that original liberalism were \"conservatives\". As time went on. Progressives sort of co-opted the term liberal. That is to say when the division first occurred everyone was basically a \"liberal\". But as that division continued to dominate the political arena, old school liberals were simply called conservatives, where as progressives were called liberals. But today progressive exists to describe a variety of things. There is still a basic meaning of \"wanting progress\". But that takes the form of two basic beefs with the left wing or democrats, or \"liberals\". Some progressives are more radical. They want more change, they want things taken farther. And some progressives are concerned that the democratic party or the left wing political party of their country is not truly standing up for *their* original values. Some progressives are ideologically no different than the progressives of the 1920s. They just don't think the current representatives of those values are acting in good faith. Other progressives are ideologically more hardcore, more \"progressive\" than the progressives of the 1920s. So today what is a progressive? A progressive is either someone who is basically a liberal but doesn't trust the democratic establishment (American context) or a very hardcore liberal, who is more concerned with implementing the values of Marx and post modern thinkers of his ilk, than they are with preserving the original liberal values old school progressives still felt close to (free speech, freedom of association, etc.) In my view a \"liberal\" today is a guy who thinks the term \"live and let live\" is basically about right but isn't so radical on the topic to be called a libertarian, particularly with regards to economic or financial freedom. A progressive (as in the more radical types) is someone who really no longer agrees with that. A progressive is an authoritarian who has a benevolent minority friendly understanding of how society should function. Like a despotic avenger of the historically marginalized.",
"Check out Dave Rubin's \"Why I Left the Left\" He goes into the distinction and what modern regressive liberals have become, and why.",
"You ever been to a party and introduce yourself to someone new, only to have it go like this? You: Hey, I'm Paul. How's it goin? Person: Hi, I'm Christopher. You: Oh, ok, cool. May I call you 'Chris'? Person: No, it's Christopher. That's what it's like when your liberal friends insist on being called Progressive instead of Liberal.",
"As evidenced by these responses, nobody knows what the Hell they are talking about and the labels largely mean nothing independent of the context of a particular country's balance of power between political parties. Ideology is at best a guiding philosophy that informs one's worldview. What matters, though, is policy and in the real world these labels aren't sufficient for describing particular constellations of policy perspectives.",
"In the US context, it's easy. Liberals follow Democratic party tradition. In FDR's time, progressives also supported him. His 2nd Bill of Rights is what progressives often allude to. His VP, Henry Wallace was a progressive. When FDR died, the leaders of the party conspired to elect Truman because Wallace was too far left and didn't favor corporations/big business as much. Wallace was anti-Cold War, staunch New Dealer, while industrial capitalists saw a great opportunity to build Europe back up as well as expand their sphere of influence. Since then, progressives separated themselves from liberals Ex: Bernie Sanders made a distinction \"I'm a progressive, not a liberal\". Hillary came out in 2016 saying she was a \"progressive\" to woo young/progressive voters with no real progressive policy. She's considered a neoliberal (husband passed NAFTA, pro TPP, roll back New Deal banking regulation - > open finance sectors, pro-fracking, no carbon tax, pro outsourcing)",
"Americans really have very little concept of the 'left wing' in Europe, because it doesn't exist in the US. Both Clinton and Trump are right of centre. Clinton occupied the same kind of group as our right-wing Conservative Government, and Trump could best be described as the far-right equivalent of a party like UKIP. Bernie Sanders probably tacked just to the right of the traditional Blair-led Labour party, but there's really no political entity which would help understand the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour party, or left-wing firebrands like Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner or George Galloway. There just isn't a US equivalent. In the UK when you say 'liberal' we think of the Liberal Democrats, who are very centrist, but famous for betraying all their promises and allying with the Conservatives in the Coalition government from 2010-15. I have certainly observed a shift to the right in the past few years, mostly post-9/11 where some political parties have taken a position that is so right-wing that to them, everything left of centre must look like full communism.",
"Historically, liberalism has referred to a set of political beliefs that includes trust in free market capitalism, free speech, and individual liberty. Basically, it's an ideology that values freedom, and defines economic freedom as the freedom to participate in a capitalist economy. It has been the dominant political ideology in western countries for a long time. In the early days of liberalism (think French Revolution), liberals tended to be pretty radical on the \"free market capitalism\" thing, favoring almost completely laissez-faire economic policy. In modern times, many liberals are Keynesian and favor some degree of intervention into things like monetary policy, but the ultimate goal is still to keep capitalism working as smoothly as possible. In the postwar era, a particular variant of liberalism called neoliberalism has come into vogue. Basically, neoliberalism is all of the above, plus a commitment to international institutions to ensure peace, stability, and free trade between nations. This refers to everything from NATO to the UN to the World Trade Organization to NAFTA and other trade agreements. In the US, liberalism has taken on a very different meaning with a lot of people, to mean simply \"anything left of center\" - that's why you'll hear many conservatives refer to socialists as liberals - and the main point of reference for most people is the Democratic Party. In more recent years, it's also become something of a dirty word in American politics, associated with everything negative that conservatives think about Democrats and their policies: excessive taxes to pay for ineffective social programs, naive foreign policy, etc. That's probably the main reason some mainstream Democrats like Hillary have, at times, tried to avoid the label. In the historical/international sense, even many Republicans in the US are (neo)liberals. Some American socialists call themselves liberal, because to them 'liberal' has nothing to do with capitalism. Progressivism, in a very broad sense, just means the belief that society has gotten better over time and should continue to do so, through advancements in science, culture, policy making, and so on. It's also typically been associated with the political belief that public funding for welfare and social programs is an effective way to continue or accelerate that progress. To be very reductionist, progressives have a strong belief that government action is effective at addressing a wide range of issues - not just the traditional duties of the state from centuries past, but more modern areas like state involvement in education, arts, and sciences, and in the establishment of a social safety net. There are both liberal progressives (people like Bernie Sanders, who don't want to abolish capitalism or radically restructure the government, but who are strong advocates for things like environmental protections, workers rights, economic redistribution, and tighter regulation of the private sector), and non-liberal progressives (e.g., socialists, who are not liberal because they do not support capitalism). TL;DR: the main reason some leftists object to being called liberal is that, historically and internationally, liberalism is associated with being pro-capitalism. In the US, the original meaning of 'liberal' has largely been lost since the GOP has used it for decades as a pejorative for Democrats, so most people associate it with Democratic policy views, particularly the ones the GOP likes to criticize, or just with anything to the left of the GOP (including explicitly anti-capitalist ideologies like socialism)."
],
"score": [
2156,
309,
70,
48,
47,
21,
15,
13,
7,
6,
6,
6,
6,
5,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Access_Pipeline"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbionese_Liberation_Army",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/hiVQ8vrGA_8"
],
[],
[
"https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2",
"http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/thefutureofeuropes/images/4/4b/Political-compass-zones.jpg/revision/latest"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5yh3rv | Why was prohibition less successful than the war on drugs? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"depy4ro",
"depy5vo",
"deq0ouh"
],
"text": [
"The war on drugs was a failure in the exact same way that prohibition of alcohol was. We just keep doing it anyway.",
"The percentage of people who use alcohol is higher than the amount that use drugs. The more people that flaunt the law, the harder it is to enforce.",
"It depends on how you define success. Context is super important. People often have different definitions, especially the ones who support or oppose it. [Here's a great chart on how the spending on enforcing the war on drugs has ballooned, yet we still have the same number of people addicted to drugs.]( URL_2 ) It always baffles me how a handful of people try to control the decisions of legal adults - especially because using drugs is a victimless crime. One things for certain - we now have several gigantic industries who are utterly dependent on ILLEGAL drugs to keep profits up. - Prison industry. 30 million people have been incarcerated on drug-related crimes. In the mid 2000's as much as 50% (well over a million people) of the prison population was in for drugs. One must also ask themselves... how successful are people at getting jobs after they get out of prison with a felony drug charge? [The private prison industry made $3.3 Billion in 2015]( URL_3 ). In addition, [Of the 1,488,707 arrests for drug law violations in 2015, 83.9% (1,249,025) were for possession of a controlled substance. Only 16.1% (239,682) were for the sale or manufacturing of a drug.]( URL_0 ) - Police Forces. [Between 2002-2012, over 1 million police hours were spent in New York City alone for simple marijuana possession.]( URL_1 ) That's 50 full-time police officers for 10 years. Doing some simple math, about 1/40 people live in NYC - 50x40 = 2,000 officers over 10 years in the United States. That's just VERY SIMPLE marijuana charges. Add in crack, cocaine, heroine, etc and you can see where this goes. I stopped doing work to research this so I'm just going to summarize some other stuff... - Weapons manufacturers. The police force has been militarized / DEA. - Alcohol industry. Stands to lose A TON from legal marijuana if marijuana/alcohol are replacements. - Sheer number of probation officers and corrections officers."
],
"score": [
13,
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Crime#sthash.H1lG7UCG.dpuf",
"http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/One_Million_Police_Hours.pdf",
"https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/chart-says-war-drugs-isnt-working/322592/",
"https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/28/how-for-profit-prisons-have-become-the-biggest-lobby-no-one-is-talking-about/?utm_term=.b20f23d627f0"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5yhkar | Where did the phrase, "What am I, chopped liver?" originate from? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deq2be8"
],
"text": [
"No one is certain, but it's been traced back at last as far as 1949. URL_0 Theories focus the idea that liver isn't liked by everyone; that this is a low-prestige ethnic dish; and that this dish looks very unattractive."
],
"score": [
9
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/65368/how-did-chopped-liver-come-to-mean-of-little-value"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5yi1zo | In America, why is taking the bus looked down upon, more so than taking the train/subway/taxi? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deq77i1",
"deq7fud",
"deq8g30",
"deq74ez",
"deq7b7p"
],
"text": [
"It's a social status thing. It isn't necessarily true everywhere, but buses tend to have routes mostly or entirely in the city, not in the areas that upper class people care about. Trains and subways will have stations that travel out of the city to the suburbs, so more wealthy people can travel into the city for work, and back out where they live. Taxis generally aren't cheap so if you can afford them, you're pretty well off. Busses are the cheapest form of public transportation, so they tend to be used most by people in the lower class.",
"Depends on where you live... in big cities like New York or Chicago, buses are a key part of mass transit used by all types. In suburban areas, buses are the only transport and poorly serve those areas, ie. few routes, lots of time between buses, etc. so you have to be really desperate to rely on it vs. even owning a $1000 piece of junk car.",
"Portland Oregon: Buses were put in to help the poor (people without cars) get to work. Horrible token service for 20 years or so. Rush hour traffic became a thing. Bus lines were improved. Light rail was put in. Tram lines were returned from when they were ripped up in the 1950s. Bike lanes and bike parking move a significant amount of people. You can actually travel anywhere without a car. Most homes went from a 2 car home to a 1 car home (excluding the outer outer suburbs). That being said, I meet a fair amount of people who question my income level or ask me about \"crime on public transportation\". These people do not walk to the corner store. They drive EVERYWHERE. They quite often turn down events downtown because parking is difficult. All of them are 50 or older.",
"I don't think the bus is really looked down upon, each method has it's own pros and cons. Buses can go places subways can't and vice versa. Trains are more for travelling between cities and don't really do you much good if you're just looking to get downtown from the suburbs. Taxi's cost more than public transit and you still get stuck in gridlock during rushour whereas subways avoid traffic. On the other hand, you can get a taxi 24/7 whereas some transit lines shut down during the early morning hours. I would think that buses are the cheapest and most frequently encountered methods of transportation (for example, smaller cities don't have streetcars, LRT or subway and are served entirely by a fleet of buses), so incidents (like fights) seem to occur on buses more often simply because there are more people using buses than anything else.",
"Many American bus services are run as \"coverage\" services, which means they try and provide some level of service to as many people as possible. This means the \"some level\" is often very infrequent which makes journey times longer overall because of the waiting time. Bus stops are also sometimes very close together, closer than is really needed for able-bodied passengers, which slows the bus down even more. With such a poor service, people who have an alternative take it. Private car, taxi, or in some places walking to the subway station. The buses are only taken by those with no other choice and that includes the very poor. Hence taking the bus becomes stigmatised as something for poor people. The alternative approach to bus service planning is \"ridership\" service. That means trying to make the bus services useful so that people actually choose to ride them. That generally means more frequent services, like buses every 5 or 10 minutes, and longer spacings between stops, 400 metres is commonly suggested. Of course you don't get something for nothing, and with a fixed overall budget to cover a city this can mean leaving some neighbourhoods, typically those that were built in a very car-centric way, with no bus service."
],
"score": [
13,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5yj0yu | How are tattoos applied on Actors for movies? | Is it applied like face paint every single day? It there like a stencil for them or are they free handed? Or are they more like temporary tattoos? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deqfohv",
"deqn8vw"
],
"text": [
"An artist will paint the tattoo on for the shoot. Yeah they do it every shooting day, sometimes along with hours and hours of other makeup.",
"Yeah it gets painted on. This is not quite a tattoo, but for the full body paint of Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique(X-men)- URL_0 It would take them 7-8 hours for one full paint job. Doesn't say how many times they did it, but it was definitely more than once throughout shooting. This is one of the more extreme examples, but it's not uncommon for make up to be pretty arduous. > It there like a stencil for them or are they free handed? Probably depends on the tattoo. The artists have a lot of tools for the job."
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://www.businessinsider.com/jennifer-lawrence-x-men-mystique-makeup-2014-5"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5yjmfv | Agnostic vs. Atheist | What exactly is the difference between an Agnostic person and an Atheist? I've heard both terms in conversation, and both have been defined to me but not in any clear way. So what are they and how are they different. I've also heard the phrase "Agnostic Atheist," what does this mean? Thanks. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deqout4",
"deqlgd2",
"deql64x"
],
"text": [
"A lot of it depends who you ask. Using the most common definitions of those words, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods, and an agnostic is undecided. Note that atheism doesn't imply certainty, just lack of belief. I don't believe there is a wombat living in my garage, but I could not claim 100% certainty. Some in the atheist communities have refined these definitions, making them separate but complementary qualities. The -theist part expresses belief, and the -gnostic is about certainty. A gnostic theist is certain gods exists, whereas agnostic atheism does not belief in gods, but admits they cannot be certain. Most atheists who would use those definitions would consider themselves agnostic atheists.",
"Theist: Believes there is a divine higher power. Atheist: Believes there is no divine higher power. Agnostic: Believes it is impossible to determine if there is a divine higher power or not. While I am a theist, I think the most rational position is agnostic.",
"Graphs such as this helped me first learn the differences: URL_0 Agnostic is the opposite of gnostic, the latter means you do have knowledge of something while the former means you don't know. Atheist is the opposite of theist, concerning your belief in a higher power or diety(s). Together, we get things like agnostic atheists, people who don't think there is a god/gods but don't think we are able to know"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"http://actok.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Agnostic+v+Gnostic+v+Atheist+v+Theist.png"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5ylw0c | Why do mentally ill people self-harm? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"der1jpd",
"der9uts",
"der36vd",
"der9ptu",
"der36nq",
"dera56m",
"derk2hl",
"derb3yk",
"der4z7y",
"derjmxv"
],
"text": [
"Because the physical pain often distracts them from their psychological pain. I also heard that depressed people do this to feel something at all.",
"Theres a wide range of reasons people do it - in most cases it is the result of a mental illness (mild or strong), although it doesn't have to be. Extreme stress, imprisonment, or mental trauma can all lead to the behaviour, as can a desire for attention, as mentioned in another comment. It isn't strictly limited to humans - a fair few animals have been observed to self harm in captivity, mostly animals with relatively advanced cognitive functions (apes, birds, maybe some marine life). Causing pain causes massive releases of a variety of chemicals, and not necessarily in a strictly unpleasant manner. I take some enjoyment for example, out of delayed onset muscle soreness from a workout, or the feeling of being tired and sore, but successful, and the mechanisms behind self harm providing relief to people is similar. In severe depths of depression there can be a desire to simply feel anything beyond numbness, with pain providing a 'real' sensation at a time when people may be losing their grip on reality through dissociation. Alternatively, some people might turn to drug abuse (generally viewed as a form of self harm), in an attempt to further dissociate from reality, or minimise time spent in a sober state. It's also helpful (speaking from personal experience) for providing an escape from negative thought loops, which can otherwise prove very difficult for people to break free from. What several other people mentioned about control is probably true as well - it's a major factor in anorexia nervosa, where self harm through restricted eating and then hiding the behaviour from family + friends (a kind of social self harm) is a form of taking back control, and occasionally in bulimia nervosa as a method of reasserting control after a binge. Then finally you just have the belief that they deserve to suffer, and as such self harming is a logical way of achieving the end goal they desire. Theres a ton of reasons why people self harm, but most of relate to the ones I've mentioned above. Additionally, don't assume self harm actually has to take a physical form - extreme behaviour, rejection of friends + people close to them, drug abuse and extreme spending (to the point of debt), breaking laws, excessive exercise, and forms of sexual behaviour can all be considered indicative of a desire to self harm by a psychiatrist. Source: psych grad who specialised in mental disorders.",
"Most methods of self-harm cause the body to release endorphins. Endorphins make you feel better for a short time.",
"I used self harm as a way to \"punish myself\" during times where I felt really low. It was a kind of atonement for my feelings and actions. People have different reasons, but the main idea is that the pain breaks your train of thought and allows you to start climbing up towards feeling normal.",
"Everyone dissociates (spaces out) but with some people when they dissociate it's very severe, particularly with some mental illness like Borderline Personality Disorder. In some cases people who are suffering from dissociation, like the above comment suggests, self harm to bring themselves 'back' to reality.",
"So imagine you have a hose with the water pressure all the way up. This is your brain spewing thoughts out. Well something happens and the pipe gets clogged or you get a kink in the hose. Well the water is still going to keep coming, but now it's stronger and is building up pressure. Your thoughts keep coming and coming and they get more and more negative and detrimental. All you can see and think about is the negative thoughts coming and how the pressure won't let up. So you cut the hose open and watch the water spill out. As you watch it drain from you the thoughts quiet and you are momentarily relieved from the bombardment until another thing blocks the hose again. It's a temporary relief that doesn't solve anything. You fixed the pressure in the hose, but now you have a hole on top of not fixing the problem of why the hose got backed up in the first place.",
"People that self harm are mentally ill, but mentally ill people don't necessarily self harm.",
"This is a very serious topic that is often made fun of. I haven't done it in 3 months, but I've had a lot of temptations to. I'm 15 male and depressed. It just makes me feel lighter. It feels like a release and it helped me get through the weeks of pain.",
"A lot of the time the reason a person with psychological problems cuts/injures/hurts themselves is because they are living in a world where they feel like they have no control, So they hurt themselves as they feel it's the only part of their life that they have any sort of control. I'm sure people more versed in psychological problems will be able to elaborate more.",
"Self harm is such a complicated thing. The reasons it happens are so different and numerous that it would be hard to adequately explain I think. I can't say for sure what the specific drive is, or necessarily a clear, defined reason it happened in my case. But originally, for me, I was raised in a very controlling household. Your basic strict rules, not having any electronics until 18, no control over your hairstyle, clothes, bedtimes, just...So many different things. But the control reached past even basic human rights. My siblings were told we didn't own anything. Nothing in the house actually belonged to us. Nothing material or not. Not even our own selves.When you combine that..With very emotionally and verbally abusive parents and severe sexual trauma in childhood..Normal thought processes just don't exist anymore. How can you face that reality? One day, even though you know better...And even though you feel the absolute wrongness of what you're about to do,( at least for me, I cried the whole time)- all of a sudden you have something noone knows about. When you stayed home sick from school...and your mom calls you and screams literal death threats, warning you to hide, because you didn't do a perfect job ironing her clothes this morning.. what do you do with that? If youre like me, you are an extremely guilty person, for no reason other than your parents taught you you weren't worth anything. (I never got caught doing anything wrong in my childhood because I constantly told on myself)You start hating yourself and feeling terrible for all the ways you've failed. You don't see why you don't deserve it really. And also, a small sense of pride..A weird pride because you are hurting a possession of your parents and they don't know. A small revenge. Then i lost control and it turned into a coping mechanism for absolutely everything. Eventually developed an eating disorder, most likely from the need of control in my life. This story doesn't make much sense...And I apologize. There's just so many things to be said, it's hard to condense it properly and then it's chaos."
],
"score": [
70,
39,
18,
18,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5yme3e | Why is there no foreign military bases in the US, yet there are plenty of US bases in foreign nations?0 | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"der5rn3",
"der5rq5",
"dercw7u",
"derj0cw",
"der5wrn",
"derj582",
"dern0ri",
"derly92",
"derq6k5",
"deri7bm",
"derlchx",
"derkwd0",
"derojtv"
],
"text": [
"Germany has bases in the US. URL_0 The US has overseas bases because they have agreements with those countries to allow them and want them to facilitate their force projection in those theatres. There isn't a great need to have a base in the US. No one is worried about Canada or Mexico getting out of hand and needing forces there in a hurry, and obviously the US wouldn't allow bases on their territory designed to protect against the US itself.",
"Most U.S.military installations in foreign countries are there to enable us to fulfill our obligations under mutual defense treaties. Using NATO as an example, if we are to be able to help smaller European countries defend their borders against potential Russian incursions, for instance, we need to have troops and equipment in place in order to respond quickly enough. On the other hand, the U.S. doesn't really require reciprocity. We don't need foreign troops stationed in CONUS to help us secure our borders. **Edit:** However, we do have a few, small contingents of foreign troops on U.S. soil, but they are here for training, usually flight training, and on U.S. made aircraft being purchased for use by their countries.",
"Simply put, the US is not in a strategically important location. Due to its own strength and lack of nearby threats there is no need for the few countries that have bases to put them there. Meanwhile, many other nations have bases around the world, particularly the United Kingdom.",
"A lot of this has to do with the Lend-Lease Act during WWII. Part of the Act allowed the US to build bases in foreign allied countries in return for aid and supplies during the war. We still have many of these bases in operation today. Also NATO, any country unwilling or incapable of supporting a military will sign up for NATO allowing the US to place bases in their country in return for defense. The reason no bases exist in US is because we are well defended and don't need to capitulate to demands of foreign nations.",
"The US military is far larger than the military of most other nations, which means that the US has no need for a foreign military base inside its borders, whereas other countries benefit from the US's enormous military being close by. Having the US protected by Germany in addition to its own military doesn't really do much, whereas having Germany protected by the American military increases their security by a lot. This difference was even more pronounced when most of these bases were established after WWII, when much of the world had suffered immense damage to their infrastructure but the US was both rich and relatively unscathed.",
"Before WW2, the US didn't really have bases in other countries, other than Panama and Cuba. As part of WW2, the US military went all over the world ('world war'). When the war ended, the US hoped to mostly go home, aside from the occupation of Germany. But the Soviets started getting belligerent, with the blockade of Berlin and then the Korean War. The US decided on a policy of containment, and most of the non-communist countries wanted US alliances and the US bases to stay, to hep deter the potential for Soviet aggression. So the US stayed in the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines. The US formed NATO and SEATO, and further basing was based on these defensive alliances. On a practical level, the US only stays in countries that want them there. They negotiate a 'SOFA' - Status of Forces Agreement. Economically, the US spends a bunch of money in the country, so it is a boost to the local economy. If a country doesn't want the US, it can ask them to leave at any time. France asked the US to leave pretty early (due to pride). Libya asked the US to leave in the 50s. The Philipines asked the US to leave in the early 1990s. Iraq asked the US to leave in 2010 (asked them in 2008 to leave by 2010, which the US did - then Iraq asked them to come back and help after ISIS, which the US did). So that's why the US has a lot of foreign bases. The US was never invaded or never needed the help of other foreign powers in any of its alliances (Mexcio is not a threat, Canada is a NATO member and Canada actually has troops overseas in NATO facilities just like the US). But it does have a lot of training facilities for its allies, and German has a permanent outpost at Hollman Air Force Base for pilot training, so they do have a military base in a way.",
"The Republic of Singapore Air Force maintains a squadron of F-15's in Idaho. URL_0 I know it's not a full installation but foreign military do operate on US soil.",
"For an ELI5 - Imagine you are a kid who is afraid they are going to get beat up by bullies. But you've got a really big friend who will watch your back. Every day, you are going to make sure that there is a spot for that friend beside you on the bus ride and at the lunch table. It's at least as much for the benefit of the host country as it is for the benefit of the US.",
"I'm posting this as a top-level comment as a warning to other readers that OPs thickheadedness in the other top-level comments is particularly maddening. To OP: You must be trolling. You're repeating the same message about a double standard when you've been supplied with very concise, logical explanations for why foreign military installations don't exist in the US. The US builds foreign bases for: a) maintaining military presence overseas in order to advance the interests of the United States; b) preserving the interests of host nations. Other nations choose not to build bases in the US because: a) North America is geopolitically stable; b) it is more prudent to make use of their relatively smaller supply of military resources on their own soil.",
"From the end of WW2 until 1989 - because of Soviet Union. From 1989 until now - because they can.",
"Singapore has some of their air force squadrons based at Luke and McConnell. They also do a lot of training in the US at various locations. Mainly because they are a City-state and have no room.",
"What purpose would anyone have for building a base in the US? In many ways, it's a very remote country, a long way from potential hotspots for threats to the national security of potential candidates like GB or France.",
"EDIT: Downvotes already! Even if this answer upsets you, it's worth reading about. I have relatives in the midwest and they would gasp at even the suggestion of American imperialism; however, if you are keenly interested in modern world history, it's an important discussion, regardless of whether or not you agree. The answer that isn't posted yet is probably the most unsavory for our American readers: American imperialism. The number of bases now is, I believe, around 180, though the number was significantly higher in the past, especially during the Cold War. American bases are often articulated in the U.S. as being part of a sort 'gift-economy,' where the bases are absolutely necessary and provide security for the surrounding areas. This is true in some cases, but the most important thing to understand about American military bases is that they are literal and symbolic projections of American power that almost always serve American interests. This is why they are often described as the 'Empire of Bases,' 'American Empire,' or 'American Imperialism.' If you are interested in reading a more academic discussion, I highly recommend Catherine Lutz's 'The Bases of Empire: The Global Struggle Against U.S. Military Posts.' tl;dr : Bases exist because of American Empire (sometimes called 'the new imperialism.'). They are the projection of American interests overseas."
],
"score": [
600,
73,
47,
33,
27,
9,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.mountainhome.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/6330/Article/309555/republic-of-singapore-air-force-unit-activates.aspx"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ymqlt | What would happen if everybody (US) paid the same tax rate? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"derc7b8",
"der8lak",
"derbpum",
"der9070",
"dercw69"
],
"text": [
"Assuming that we took careful care to set the rate such that overall government revenues would not change. In addition we'd have to look at deductions and credits, but let's say we eliminated them as well. Let's assume that all of those problems are addressed and you find a perfect percentage to charge everyone and keep all government revenues exactly the same. What you are asking about here is called a \"flat tax\". This is where everyone pays literally the exact same percentage of their income in taxes. While this seems very fair, once you take a close look it's VERY not fair. The reason it's considered unfair is because poor people tend to spend much higher percentages of their income on a class of expenses known as necessities of life. We're talking things like food, water, clothing and shelter. Things that are required to keep you alive. Let's take a poor (but not too poor) person. They make $700 per month and pay $500 per month in housing, the rest on food. The housing that they can get for $500 is the cheapest available in their city. OK, but mostly shit and includes roommates. They eat very little and fairly badly on $50 per week. If you charge this person a 10% tax rate, they need to pay $50 per month in taxes. Thie reduces their food budget by 25%, so now they don't get to eat for the last week of every month. Now lets look at a rich person. They earn $10,000 per month and spend $5,000 per month on housing. They eat well, spending $150 per week and have plenty of money leftover for savings and other luxuries. A 10% tax on this rich person will not impact their food budget. It will mean they put less into savings, or spend less on luxury items, perhaps they might select a cheaper home. But they will not go hungry. Basically what I'm getting at here is that poor people spend a much higher percentage of their income on the necessities of life than wealthy people do. Even in cases where a rich and poor person both spend the same percentage of their income on something like housing (a rare case, but one that can exist), it's still unfair because the rich person is able to spend less on a less nice home whereas the poor person is already in the cheapest home available. This is where the concepts of discretionary spending come into play. A wealthy person has not only more money to spend but more ability to decide where to spend the money that they have. Poor people are restricted because they are already scraping the bottom of the barrel to get anything, so there's not really any room to move downwards. So a flat tax actually is considered regressive (poor people pay more) because we should be looking at discretionary income, not total income. That's the intent of our tax system, to take into account the fact that poorer people don't have as much room to move and save as richer people do. So we say if you make less than X amount you don't need to pay anything as you don't have any discretionary income. As you move up the income chain, more and more of your income is discretionary. therefore we charge you a higher and higher percentage of income. If you make $1,000,000 per month, you likely have a VERY expensive house and some nice cars, but you don't NEED those things to live. At that level, 99% of your income is discretionary.",
"Assuming we took a middle tax rate as the rate, poor people would be poorer, rich people would be richer. The system would be less fair and reduce economy mobility. Tax revenue would be down which would mean less funding for programs",
"Generally speaking, \"flat tax\" is beneficial to the wealthy, and harmful to the impoverished. If the rate is on the higher end, towards what high income individuals currently pay, that massively increases the tax burden on low income individuals, reducing even further their ability to afford the basics of life. If the rate is set on the lower end, towards what low income individuals currently pay, that is a huge tax break for the rich, and massively reduces the income of the government, resulting in cuts to government services, which are more likely to be needed by the less well off. The specifics of what would happen depend entirely on the tax rate in question, but generally speaking it would devastate the economy, the people, and/or the government one way or another.",
"If you left all the deductions in place,to make everyone have the same adjusted gross income (AGI), you'd end up with about a 20% tax rate. This would make the 'break even' point about $90,000/year in income for an individual and $150,000/year for a married couple. So if your AGI was below that level you'd pay more in income tax, and if your AGI was above that level you'd pay less. Keep in mind that AGI post-deduction incomes so the actual 'break even' pay rates would be higher.",
"You can't really live in America for less than $2,000/mo by the time you cover rent, utilities, medical, food, internet, phone, and transportation. I'm sure someone will reply with \"yes you can\" but it's really tough to get much lower than that. Therefore, each individual needs to come up with $24,000/year to barely meet costs. Anything above that allows you to spend a bit more, or simply add to savings. Assuming you're working a full time job, a low-end worker will only get about 2000hrs in a year after you account for unpaid vacation and sick time. That means to just cover costs they need to be making $12/hr after taxes. If we tax everyone at the same rate, minimum wage workers are forced to choose between food, rent, and taxes each month just to get by. Those making more than $24,000/year can cut some of their luxuries to get make ends meet. Personally, I'd like to see income tax be X% of all income over Minimum Wage X 2000. Basically giving everyone a large deduction that scales well to all pay scales. Nobody should choose between food and Government. This would also give almost everyone a profit incentive to raise the minimum wage periodically, but also a profit incentive to keep raises reasonable."
],
"score": [
88,
31,
8,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5yna4u | Why are they called "egg rolls" when they don't contain eggs? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"derdmec"
],
"text": [
"the roll part contains eggs. so yea, that's pretty much it. egg roll, the egg is in the roll, like baked in, not rolled in the middle."
],
"score": [
20
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ynt87 | Why is it almost impossible to change someone's mind on any given topic - even when there is clear proof they are wrong? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"derhyfh",
"deri5to"
],
"text": [
"Cognitive dissonance... Your mind literally does everything it can NOT to change opinion. It doesn't want to believe it's wrong, so it'll do everything possible to not believe it",
"A lot of times people identify with their beliefs. This means an assumed \"attack\" on their belief is an attack on them personally. Also, when someone has their mind made up there are usually many factors that go into that specific idea, that is why its difficult to change their mind without changing the foundation that the idea is built on."
],
"score": [
20,
13
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5yo8gg | why western formal menswear is always white and black, with something tied around your neck? | I like classic mens fashion, so recently i started wondering about what visual effects lapels, ties, Black and white generate, how they work and how it became socially accepted. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dernwoi"
],
"text": [
"I only know about ties. They used to be functional. Weirdly, in the Croatian military during the 1600's, they used to tie the top of their military jackets together (instead of a top button) with a bit of cloth. King Louis XIII liked the look so much he made it a requirement for royal gatherings. It became fashionable as a result. Never really went out of style."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5yp74g | EP vs LP vs Album. What is the difference and why does it matter? | The only post I could see on this was from 3 years ago and any comments that weren't deleted had negative points. I have looked up the difference multiple times on google but never really understood why it mattered, hoping someone can clear this up for me. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"derutk4",
"derum04"
],
"text": [
"Running time mainly. It was more of a thing when music was being pressed on vinyl. A single had 2 songs (an A side and a B side) pressed on a 7\" record and was spun at 45 RPM. An EP (extended play) typically had 4 songs (2 on each side) and was also usually pressed on a 7\", but was spun at 33 RPM (because each side had a longer running time vs. a single). Then there's the LP (long play) which was a full 12\" record with usually 5-6 songs per side (10-12 in total) played at 33 RPM. There are many exceptions to each of these cases, but those were the general formats in which music was released from the introduction of vinyl records through the 1980s. There was also a less common 10\" record format, which was popular among punk and indie bands for releasing EPs throughout the 80s and 90s because you weren't limited to just a handful of 2-minute songs with the larger size. Then CDs came along and all this pretty much went out the window. You could release an 30 minute, 8-song CD and call it an EP if you wanted. \"Maxi\" singles were coming with all kinds of \"remixes\" so you ended up with 5 bonus tracks, etc. They're more or less terms that are still hanging around from the vinyl days and EP is generally used to refer to a release that is more than a single (which is generally released to promote the A-side track) and a full-length album.",
"This makes me feel old that people don't know this anymore, but the reason EP v LP mattered is because when music was released on vinyl records, the size of the record depended on whether it was a full 12\" record (LP) or a smaller 8\" (EP)."
],
"score": [
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5ypgfy | How does not working prove to the patriarchy women deserve equal pay? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"derw3bf"
],
"text": [
"You're missing the point. The entire purpose of the protest is to say \"hey, look at how many things can't be done when women are not working. They provide a lot of value and labor to the economy. They deserve equal pay because they are of equal importance.\""
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ypqq1 | language dialects | Are different dialects of a foreign language as similar as the English language from New York to Alabama to England to Canada, or are they more different? Also, as a secondary question, why does it always sound like Arabic speaking nations are yelling? Do English speakers sound loud to other language speakers? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"des553n"
],
"text": [
"The degree of variance amongst dialects depends on the language. For example, dialects of Spanish are like English- distinct, yet totally mutually intelligible. Someone from Bolivia can chat with someone from Spain, each in their own dialect, with little difficulty understanding one another. Arabic, for example, is different. Arabic is a highly fractured language, with each country having its own distinct dialect which can vary so much as to be unintelligible to speakers of other dialects (this dialect of a given region is called *foos-ha*.) Someone speaking colloquial Morrocan Arabic would have a very difficult time making themselves understood to someone speaking Yemeni Arabic. However, a formal version of Arabic called *Modern Standard Arabic* is commonly understood throughout the Arab world. If a Yemeni and a Moroccan were to meet, they would not try to speak *foos-ha* to one another, instead they would communicate by speaking something close to MSA. As far as Arabs seemingly yelling all the time...language and culture are inseparable. Language does not exist in a vacuum; the way we speak is intertwined with the culture we speak it in."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5yq7td | degrees of black belts | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"des3770",
"des33cx"
],
"text": [
"Note that the whole belt system only dates back to the 1880s, so it is not exactly an ancient tradition. Every school does their own thing. Your typical strip mall McDojo will pretty much give you all the black belt degrees you want, if you stick around long enough and your checks clear each month. In other schools, it might take ten years to get your black belt to begin with. Also, beyond black belt, it becomes less about being a \"badass\". In fact, most martial arts are less about self defense, and more of a stylized fighting sport. You'll note that UFC looks nothing like Jackie Chan or Bruce Lee. Beyond black belt, other factors, like instructing, come into play.",
"First thing to remember is that the belt rankings are a fairly recent innovation. They were created in the late 19th century. Second creating a new ranking or degree is no different than any other arbitrary rank. A bunch of people agree on what this ranking means and you have to pass those standards to achieve this rank. The important thing to remember is that because people are coming up with the standards there will be people that will be able to achieve those standards as soon as they are created. You are not going to create a standard that no one can achieve, you will pick somethong that is difficult but not impossible."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5yqdux | How come eggs are not served with chicken and vice versa? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"des52yi",
"des4y2w",
"descy4l"
],
"text": [
"There's a very popular dish in Japan called \"Parent & Child\" (Oyako) which has chicken and eggs, chicken and egg breakfast burritos, chicken and egg breakfast sandwiches at Chic-Fil-A...",
"Which one do you make first? *Which one do you eat first?* No really, you can do this. Chicken sausage is a thing. Great with eggs. Waffles are made with eggs, and go well with chicken. You can fry or bake chicken with a batter, which can be made with eggs. Try a cobb salad sometime. Aside from greens, the two key ingredients are grilled chicken and hard boiled egg.",
"Eggs and chicken are served together a lot. Eggs are a part of a lot of batters used to fry foods, including fried chicken. Cobb salad traditionally has grilled chicken and boiled eggs on it. Oyako (parent and child) is a Japanese dish that is chicken and egg. Chicken is sometimes used in breakfast tacos which use eggs too. There are many more foods too."
],
"score": [
10,
7,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5yrhfn | why are germans so afraid of being proud of their nation? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"desd80a",
"desglal",
"desdcj2",
"dese0qg",
"desdn4m",
"desgbim"
],
"text": [
"Because it makes them sound as Nazis. The first time German flags were out in the open and everyone seemed fine about it was the football world cup 2006. Some wounds take time to heal.",
"A lot of the replies so far have mentioned the Third Reich as a reason, and that's partially true. But there's a great deal more to it than that. The first thing to remember is that national pride is not universally thought of as good. Just because some nations, like America or France, and (stereotypically) proud of themselves and consider this to be a good thing doesn't mean nations that *don't* feel the same way are lacking in some way. It simply means they *different*. Also, what do you mean by \"being proud\"? I live in Germany, and actually I find that most Germans think their country is doing reasonably well. For example, they're quite proud of the fact that Germany provided a safe haven for so many refugees, although most would suggest ways it could have been done better. What they don't do is loudly proclaim this pride: that kind of thing would be seen as arrogant. It's not up to you to tell people how wonderful you are; it's up to other people to judge for themselves based on your actions. If we take the US as a comparison, it's true that a lot of what Americans might regard as a healthy pride in their own nation is seen by Germans as jingoism, which could potentially lead to nationalism, and then to a Fourth Reich. Germans see that view of the world vindicated by the Trump presidency: the way they see it, Trump supporters are more likely to engage in flag-waving jingoism and declare themselves \"true patriotism\", and Trump's campaign focused a lot on self-sufficiency (preventing companies building factories outside of America, cutting back on international trade agreements and withdrawing from military alliances), national pride (\"Make America great again\" and \"America first\") and the perceived failure of traditional politics -- all major components of Mussolini's fascist movement. You probably need to understand the histories of these two countries. The United States consciously broke away from Britain and needed to very quickly establish a sense of national identity, or it would have fallen apart. The population consisted of a huge mix of people from very diverse cultures, and they needed something to rally around. Allegience to the Crown was replaced by allegiance to the Flag; and even though that has long served its purpose, the traditions continue and the Stars and Stripes are treated with a reverence and respect that in Germany would be shown only by the most religious to holy relics -- a bit weird, really. Germany as a nation state, though, has only really existed since 1871, a time when even the US (a relatively new kid on the block) was already planning its centenary. Before then, what existed was an ever-changing patchwork of tiny microstates: kingdoms, principalities, duchies, even the occasional republic. These were loosely grouped together as the \"Holy Roman Empire of German Nations\" -- nation**s**, plural, because although most of them spoke a similar language, that was pretty much the only thing they all had in common. [Here, for example, is a simplified map of the Holy Roman Empire as it was in 1648]( URL_0 ), the year the Peace of Westphalia was signed, an international treaty that paved the way for the modern conception of the nation state. That map changed constantly: last year, the area I live in celebrated the 200th anniversary of its annexation to Bavaria. Over the centuries, these territories slowly joined up to become something more like a real country, but it was a painful process and involved a few wars (two of which may have been deliberately provoked by Chancellor Bismarck in order to bring the southern provinces in except Austria, which was to be excluded). Unification was eventually achieved, and the German Empire was born -- but it didn't last very long. There were only ever three emperors of this nation state, and the second one only lasted 99 days. The third emperor, Wilhelm II, was a hardline autocratic nationalist, and it was on his watch that the First World War swept across Europe; and after that, the Third Reich rose up and, with its flag-waving nationalistic pride, plunged Europe into its second major war in living memory. In historical terms, pretty much the moment Germany started boasting about its national pride, really bad things happened. Since then, generations of schoolchildren have been taught about this period, especially the bit about the Nazis, and always with the simple message: \"Never again.\" But while Germans are leery of *national* pride, which has only really been possible as a concept for 150 years, they make up for that with their *local* pride. This isn't immediately obvious to outsiders, but many Germans -- even young ones -- identify more closely with their local area. Where I live, most people are most emphatic that they are Lower Franconian first and German second; and will only tolerate being called \"Bavarian\" when talking to northern Germans who can't be expected to know any better, or when it's a convenient excuse to drop everything and drink beer. A typical joke often told in the little cluster of villages where I live, just on the Bavarian side of the Bavaria/Hesse border, involves the derailment of a train. A local news reporter asks the driver how it happened. \"I saw a Hessian standing on the track,\" he replies. The reporter asks why he couldn't have just run him over. \"That was my plan,\" says the driver, \"but he ran off the tracks and I had to derail the train to get him.\" The reason Germans don't sing *Deutschland, Deutschland über alles* isn't because they're too ashamed to sing national anthems. The official German National Anthem is the third stanza of that poem, and begins, \"Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit\" -- which means, \"Unity and justice and freedom,\" German values that Germans are secretly very proud of. The first stanza isn't sung for two reasons. First, although it was originally intended to mean \"German-speaking people should stop being so parochial and instead come together in one nation state in peace and co-operation,\" it was wilfully misinterpreted by the Nazis to mean, \"Germany is the greatest country in the world and nobody can stand in our way.\" And second, that stanza describes the extent the area inhabited by native German-speakers at the time it was written, meaning that the stanza effectively lays claim to vast territories now part of Poland, Russia, Italy and Denmark, so could be misunderstood in an international context as a call to war. Basically, Germans do have a sense of pride. They are secretly proud of their nation, but would consider saying so too loudly to be an act of arrogance; and they are much less secretly proud of their local culture, but you have to have lived here for a while to understand that that's what it is.",
"Pride in their nation killed 30 million people and spawned the man whose name is still globally used as a synonym for Ultimate Evil seven decades after his death. Germans are still sensitive about these facts, and are also a highly-educated and philosophical people who wish to avoid the attitudes in themselves that produced those events.",
"Because they know first hand what patriotism can lead to. It's only a small step from patriotism to nationalism, so they distrust any move in that direction.",
"my brother in law has a tattoo on his right forearm that says \"GERMAN PRIDE\" and whenever he gets in a fight he screams it at people. he's like 6 foot tall, 12 pounds, and a dope fiend.",
"I think you're assuming nationalism is a good thing. It's really not. What are the benefits of a bunch of people getting all prideful when it comes to political borders? It's easier to raise a draft. That's about it. What are some of the bad things it leads to? Well, take a look at Germany and all that bad things that happened. So a good chunk of them are afraid of it the same way that people are afraid of cancer. Because it sucks."
],
"score": [
18,
14,
7,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/09/6b/5b/096b5b63080f7c16ee83a0d13489a65d.png"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ys3w2 | Why is it so popular to drink beverages using a straw in US? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"deshjbk"
],
"text": [
"Have you used a straw? It is fun. You can drink more easily and more quickly. We put ice in our drinks and straws make drinking that easier. Glasses are colder because of all the ice and straw allows you to drink without your hands getting cold, or wet from the condensation. Woman can drink without lipstick/gloss getting ruin. You can put a lid on it and drink with much less risk of spilling or leakage."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ytlyt | Why are there so many WW2 movies and hardly no movies on WW1? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"desyus4",
"dessn6g",
"dessrl0",
"det22w5"
],
"text": [
"* we have a lot of contemporary footage from WWII, which makes it far more familiar to us * WWII has a clear good guys vs. bad guys narrative and a definitive outcome...WWI was a mess with no clear heroes or villains * WWII projected the US and the USSR into their roles as superpowers that would dominate world politics for the next 50 years...while WWI did lead to the rise of fascism and communism, it was more of a prelude to WWII * most big, famous movies are made in the US, and the US's involvement in WWI was more limited",
"WW1 was a long bloody slog with people living, fighting and dying ontop of the bodies of those that died before, more soldiers dieing of disease then from bullets (although i am not sure if that takes infections from unjuries recieved in combat into that number) and no clear good guy. Its hard to make a compelling movie when everything about it was terrible. WW1 has the same problem (in movies) that Vietnam has, how do you portray the unending grind in a two or three hour movie? Its difficult to show just how digging foxholes filled with corpses actually is for a person. Let alone digging into a corpse of a friend. And then trying to live in it for weeks.",
"In America, at least, there's just not as much of a connection to WWI. We didn't get involved until the last year or so, compared to WWII, where we were involved for much longer. Plus, WWII is easier to make a simple \"good guys vs bad guys\" story out of",
"In addition to the reasons given below, WW1 just doesn't have as much emotional resonance with Americans. It seems to be regarded as \"that bullshit European superpower war that we got dragged into\". Also, for a long time afterwards, WW1 was seen as a sort of embarrassment; this hideous frenzy of insanity that broke out for a few years, saw many of the best young men in every country get slaughtered for no clearly defined \"reason\", and left everyone (except the US) worse off."
],
"score": [
15,
15,
11,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5yud2l | Why does America prefer to "build a wall" and keep Mexican people out, rather than try to establish a better relationship and help Mexico grow stronger so their citizens will stay? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"desyeyo"
],
"text": [
"Who is \"America?\" I think you'll find that comparatively few people actually support the wall. Besides, these days less than half of people illegally crossing the southern border are Mexican. Most of them are from other central american states like Honduras and El Salvador."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5yuyhq | What was the Underground Railroad and how did it work? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"det30l3"
],
"text": [
"It was a wide array of people who worked together to provide safe houses and transportation along secret routes to allow slaves to escape northwards. Despite the name it was neither underground nor a railroad, overall, although it's not inconceivable that some of the routes had a little of either. At its simplest, small independent groups of people who desired to help slaves escape would usher them along their portion of the route, hiding them in their homes or other safe locations, and move them to the area of the next group towards freedom. By staying independent of one another, it prevented someone in the employ of the slavers from joining up and figuring out the whole plan."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.