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
listlengths 1
1
| selftext_urls
listlengths 1
1
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6063v0 | Why do US police officers talk oddly, such as "he exited the vehicle" vs "he got out of the car"? | Neither seems more specific than the other to me, they just seem to pick the most annoying turns of phrase. Is there a reason? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df3r8yr",
"df3rqnm",
"df3rgrg"
],
"text": [
"Not a police officer but a corrections officer and we have to write a certain way as well in our reports. It's because our reports could end up in court and with the way lawyers act like weasels we have to make certain we can't be taken out of context or accused of something based on what we write. An example is that we no longer write \"I escorted the inmate to the cell\" as that is apparently too aggressive now. Someone would think we used force. Now we say \"I walked the inmate to the cell\" as walking apparently meets the not being meanies to inmates now standard. Another example is we do not say \"I ordered\" and instead we say \"I gave verbal commands\" It's all about the fact that our reports can and will end up in court. In fact we've been taught since the academy that every single piece of paper we write on work is a legal document. Even our notepads we carry on our person. The same applies to police. Everything they write and say can and will be stretched in every way by lawyers in court.",
"Cop here: For official reports, we can't be ambiguous. There's not really a difference between \"he got out of the car\" and \"he exited the vehicle\". A better example would be \"He tried to punch me\" vs \"he attempted to strike me with a closed fist\". The difference is that words like \"attempted\", \"strike\", and \"closed fist\" are all words included in the definition of assault in my state, as well as in the definition of \"active aggression\" in my department's use-of-force policy. It gives a clearer picture of what happened.",
"I'm not a cop but I worked in the intelligence field in the army and I also worked in a prison. A lot of wording had to be extremely specific and concise, using the same formatting for everything. This is to avoid confusing, legal disputes, to remove bias, and to make word searches easier. Imagine looking for car-related incidents and having to search \"Car,\" \"automobile,\" \"vehicle,\" \"SUV,\" etc. If you say \"He got out of his car\", what car did he get out of? Where did he go? How did he leave the car? Was he forced in any way? All of these are important. Details should be more specific, like \"He exited his 1992 white Volkswagon through the driver's door with his arms raised.\" The bias is also important - we can't give our own observations, we can only report what actually happened. Saying \"he had his right hand in a closed fist\" instead of \"he was noticeably aggressive\"."
],
"score": [
32,
13,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
606oqe | Why is the U.S. presidency referred to as the leader of the free world when there are plenty of leaders in free countries | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df3wc6v",
"df3xqni",
"df3y03e",
"df42g03",
"df3vv9t",
"df451x3"
],
"text": [
"During the Cold War, non-communist countries, and in particular members of NATO, referred to themselves as the \"Free World.\" Since the US formed NATO and is by far its most powerful country, the president of the US is informally referred to as the leader of the free world.",
"After WWII the US was 50% of the world economy, a leader in tech/agriculture/medicine, and very vocal/forceful about democracy. Democracy being equated to freedom, the US being the lead democratic nation, it only makes sense that the title would be applied.",
"Because the United State is look at to be the last standing \"World power\" and many countries look to them for guidance and protection.",
"The US had the biggest economy and the biggest military of the non-communist world during the Cold War. Now that the president is an international joke, I've heard arguments that the title might more properly belong to the German Chancellor",
"Mostly American arrogance. The US president is no more the leader of 'the free world' than any other western leader. Especially if you look at the various freedom index's which rank the US has not number one and actually quite low in some regards (freedom of the press for example).",
"Because it is the leader. After WW2 the US has been the only democratic superpower(the only superpower right now). It has the largest influence of any country and has been using its large military, cultural & political influence and economy to \"spread democracy\" around the world and protect its democratic allies. Although things have been changing a lot over the last few years."
],
"score": [
40,
11,
4,
4,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
607379 | How can some people intuitively tell when a website/news article is bogus while others cannot? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df40i5u"
],
"text": [
"Two things: 1) **Confirmation bias.** Confirmation bias is the tendency to believe things that reinforce your existing beliefs. This makes it harder for people to recognize something as fake if it is in line with their beliefs. So if you already think Hillary Clinton is evil and malicious, a fake news article that says she's running a child trafficking ring out of the basement of a pizza parlor confirms your existing bias, so you are more likely to believe it. Everyone is guilty of this to some extent. The people who fall for fake news are _more_ guilty of it though, and perhaps more susceptible because they lack . . . 2) **Critical thinking skills.** Critical thinking is the cure for confirmation bias. Unfortunately, a lot of people never learned effective critical thinking skills in school or stopped using them (probably because confirmation bias felt so good). A person with well-developed critical thinking skills will stop and ask themselves questions about a news story _from all sides_, not just from the one that confirms their beliefs. Hand in hand with this is the ability to place sources in context -- you might not like Fox but like the New York Times, or maybe you like Fox and distrust the NYT -- but either way, you should be able to mentally place those and other media outlets on a political spectrum and use that as part of your critical analysis of the news. And if the source is some never-before-heard-of website, that's a red flag that you really need to bust out the [critical thinking nunchuks]( URL_0 )."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MioG2Plo8ew/hqdefault.jpg"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
607mtz | How did the Anglosphere manage to spin globalism into an anti-Anglo movement when it was created by them in the first place for their own direct benefit? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df43n1o"
],
"text": [
"What is this \"anti-anglo movement\" you're talking about?"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
607nw5 | why does the stereotype "the middle child in a family is often times the least favorite" exist? And where does it come from? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df43zu8",
"df4f3eq",
"df446d1",
"df46a24"
],
"text": [
"Probably because the oldest one is doing new things first for himself and parents. The oldest one was also the trial run child so the way has been paved for the middle child. The youngest is just simply the baby and will receive the most attention.",
"Middle here. It's very simple. With kid #1 parents try hard. Lotsa of hands on, lotsa of expectations, and they tend to overdue discipline a bit. Kid 1 gets a bit gun shy, over pleasing, over responsible, some of the joy is lost in the eyes. 2nd kid parents roll back some of their previous misteps and overbearing. Probably good but not perfect. Kid #1 see this as unfair and hypocritical. By kid #3 mom and dad just say fuck it, I want this kid to love me plus kids just seem to raise themselves lol. Great for kid 3 but now kid 1 is in hysteria about hypocrisy and discipline and kid 2 even realizes things aren't fair. This sets siblings into intractable conflict. Parents then respond by defending the weakest, youngest child, and then trusting the eldest, most responsible child. So everytime kid 2 says mom and dad are unfair mom and dad think \" shoulda seen what we did to #1\" but they don't say it aloud cuz it's kinda fucked up . So kid 2 can't get justice. Kid 2 is trapped as a complainer, not responsible like #1 who's slightly damaged goods and a threat to #3 the baby because #2 demands some kinda of equity but can never find it and thus is a bit angry and critical of #3. From here parent put their eggs in #1 most likely to succeed basket and then into #3 basket because you're our miracle and #2 just has to tough it out with what's left.",
"The first child in a family tends to get doted on, the parents showering it with praise and attention. A second child following shortly after will be relatively neglected compared to the first. Not necessarily in an abusive fashion, just less. They get the hand-me-down clothing from the other sibling, they have to share the attention. Usually parents will slow down on having kids at this point, so by the time a third child comes around, it is almost like the first time again. The third child can't use the hand-me-downs because they've aged and worn too much. The older children don't need as much supervision as before, freeing the parents to watch the third child more.",
"I'm not sure, but I know that the youngest is always the favorite. I'm the oldest and it feels like I'm the least favorite, but I'm sure my younger brother, the middle child, feels that way too. However, we can both agree my little sister comes across as the favorite. I don't blame my parents. She is animating, drawing, writing, and coding at the age of 10, but I feel like my parents ignore her bad side, whether it's on purpose or not. Since she's so mature for her age, she can be a real mean person, but most of the time my parents don't get that. Every family seems to be different, though."
],
"score": [
13,
9,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
607u31 | How do truckers live and what do they usually spend money on? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df45j2h"
],
"text": [
"I drove over the road for almost 2 years... so here's the gist of it: For someone who works for a company, and doesn't own his own truck, he would buy things like toiletries, food, probably pay rent on a house to go to when he wants a break... the occasional hotel room when he wants to get out of the confines of the truck every now and again. If a guy owns his own truck, then he has MANY more out of pocket costs to meet: -truck payment -payment to his freight broker (usually withheld from payment for loads) -IFTA Stickers (International Fuel Tax Agreement) -Licenses (CDL, Registration on the vehicle, HazMat Certs if he hauls hazardous) -fuel -insurance on the vehicle (On the mechanical vehicle itself) -freight insurance(in case of damage in transit) -maintenance (oil changes, breakdowns, tows) -tolls -food -Permits (if he hauls heavy hauling... anything over 80k lbs. gross weight in the US) There are many more things that the trucker has to pay for out of pocket. It's a very good job, and someone can make quite a bit of money. In the only WHOLE calendar/tax year I worked, I moved over 4 million pounds of freight, drove more than 200,000 miles (partly me driving, and I trained new drivers for a little while, and those miles still counted toward my pay) and made almost $75,000 that year before taxes. I didn't operate my own truck, I drove for a company. Most drivers get paid by the mile. There are companies and brokers who pay a fixed rate per day... or an hourly salary, but for the VASTLY large part, drivers are paid per mile based on what's called a \"paid mile.\" Paid miles are mapping out a distance by drawing a straight-line on a map from Point A to Point B, even though routes aren't always straight. So anything you drive under your paid miles is free money. Anything over that number of miles, you don't get paid for. It's quite a taxing job for someone with a family though (husband/wife, kids), because you're gone all the time, and you make no money if those wheels aren't moving. It's a very lonely job, as most trucks operate with just one driver. There are team drivers, but while one sleeps, the other drives. So personal interaction with others is limited to stops and home time."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
607you | Can someone explain the controversy over male circumcision? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df46kie",
"df46meu",
"df46vfj",
"df4b98m"
],
"text": [
"Many people don't believe you should cut off functioning parts of the body of toddlers who can't consent, for no benefit.",
"The controversy is that parents are removing a piece of their child's flesh, which may reduce sexual sensation as an adult, for what many to believe to be very overrated, and ultimately unnecessary, medical reasons. So on the one side, you have people who say, \"It's tradition, and it makes it easier to clean the penis.\" On the other side, you have people who say, \"You're mutilating your child's genitals for no good reason, and we'd all be appalled if you were cutting of their ears or something, so why is this any different?\"",
"For years, doctors claimed cutting the foreskin was \"hygienic\" and everyone followed along; it was culturally expected for a while. This practice was also done for religious purposes. Today, we know the pseudoscience behind the \"hygiene\" is false, and cutting the foreskin has no medical benefits. Many people believe that with the knowledge we now have, the practice is barbaric and should be discontinued until the person is old enough to consent to the procedure.",
"Circumcision is primarily a cosmetic surgical procedure done on the genitals of newborns. There is nothing else like it that is deemed acceptable in Western medicine. There are some marginal health benefits, such as decreased rates of UTIs, decreased transmission of certain STIs, decreased risk of penile cancer, etc. However, all of these things are either very rare in anatomically normal, healthy boys, or are better prevented by other means (condom usage, hygiene education, HPV vaccination, etc). In short, it's a cosmetic surgery done on pediatric patients that are unable to give informed consent, with very questionable utility in preventative medicine."
],
"score": [
14,
8,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6089fk | Why does the president of the US need so much more security procedures than many other presidents of the world? Why is the US President considered more at risk of an attack? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df4e3cw",
"df4epc6"
],
"text": [
"Probably because several US Presidents have been assassinated while in office. There have also been a few who have survived assassination attempts. Its easy to forget this as it has been almost 40 years dince Reagan was shot.",
"The U.S. President is both head of state and head of government. They are a national-level politician who represents their own views rather than being a local-level politician who represents the views of the party and their own district. This focuses the power of the government on a single individual in a way that doesn't apply to most heads of government. Killing the U.S. President not only is an assault on the government of the U.S., but it can create radical shifts in policy. In contrast, most other developed democracies have a parliamentary system where the head of government is simply a member of the leading party/coalition in the legislature. If you assassinate Theresa May, you aren't killing the individual who represents the nation in the people's mind (that's the Queen, who is the head of state). All you're doing is killing the MP from Maidenhead. Before her seat is cold, some other nearly-as-prominent Conservative MP would take her place and the government would continue as before. While U.S.-style executive branches do exist elsewhere, they're primarily in relatively unimportant (in terms of international clout) places."
],
"score": [
10,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
608nz4 | What Do Conservatives “Conserve”? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df4d704",
"df4diee"
],
"text": [
"It is derived from a conservative desire to keep the status quo. They conserve the traditions of the past.",
"Like so many political terms, there isn't necessarily an objective definition of the term \"conservative,\" and the word means very different things depending on the era, country, and political context. In 19th century America, for example, the terms meant mostly the opposite of what they mean today. Even in modern times, the label of \"classical liberal\" refers to libertarian ideas. It is thus difficult to link the term \"conservative\" to modern political conservatism. Part of the reason the label continues to stick may be due to the core conservative philosophy of limiting the power of the government whereas liberals tend to advocate for expansion of the state. Broadly speaking, the words liberal and conservative carry connotations of \"too much\" or \"applied heavily\" in the case of the former and \"hesitantly used\" or \"applied sparingly\" in the case of the latter, which broadly matches the respective philosophies about the role of the state. tl;dr there's complicated semantic history involved but conservatives want to conserve (limit) the power and authority of the government."
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6095hz | Why is St Patrick's day so popular in countries other than Ireland? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df4hjq4",
"df4ogl5"
],
"text": [
"It was celebrated in America originally because of a large amount of people with irish decent that took pride in their heritage",
"Essentially because Ireland has a huge diaspora, due to high historical emigration rates. Even today Ireland has a net negative immigration rate: in 2014 there were 15 immigrants per 1000 people vs 18 emigrants per 1000, the third highest emigration rate in Europe."
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60a2d3 | The Anti/Arson/Property Damage/Bombing of Abortion Clinic in the USA. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df50qjq",
"df4nz7b"
],
"text": [
"Yes, it's terrorism, and the actions of terrorists are difficult to describe with any rationality- they're beyond reason. Like most terrorists, they are focused on the evil of some person or group that they become delusional and derive their sense of purpose from fighting that group violently. It usually involves illogical jumps from \"some of these people do wrong things,\" to \"all these people are THE problem and we need to kill them.\" They also, like a lot of religious terrorists, claim to be the \"real\" version of a recognized religion while violating that religion's core teachings. There are no known networks of anti-abortion terrorists. It looks like they're all lone wolf attackers or small lone groups.",
"> Does it consider as a terrorist act? Yes, it is generally prosecuted as terrorism. > Who is actually leading them? It's always been individuals, not organizations. There are a few websites that publish the names and locations of abortionists, which does make it easier for an individual to carry out a bombing or killing. > Why the fuck are they doing it? Most Christians believe that abortion is murder. The bombers therefore believe that they are killing murderers and protecting innocents. > How did USA morphed to become anti Abortion Clinic where other western society didn't? The USA has remained a much more religious country than most of the West. There's a great deal of political friction as well due to one major party supporting abortion, the other condemning abortion, and the Supreme Court having decided the issue for the entire country when so many are against it."
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60a698 | what happens when serious offences are committed by children below the age of criminal responsibility? | Is the age rule a strict cliff-edge, or might they still face severe penalties regardless of their young age; or are their parents held accountable somehow? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df4ojy5",
"df4odvj",
"df4u549"
],
"text": [
"In the US, if you're under 18 and you commit murder, you're often tried as an adult, but the laws very by state. 2600 kids, as young as 10, that have been sentenced to life without parole for heinous crimes at that age. Beyond those extreme instances, the USA has a juvenile justice system, or 'juvie', where kids are put and attempts at rehabilitation are made.",
"This depends hugely on which country you're in! And potentially on the serious-seriousness of the crime. E.g. in the UK our age is 10, and it was actually lowered from 14 because of the James Bulger case. The two perpetrators were 11 iirc and the age was dropped so they could be charged with murder.",
"If you are below the age of criminal responsibility, you cannot be criminally punished for your actions. You *can* be found to be insane and be committed. You parents could be criminal or civilly responsible if it is determined their neglect or lack of supervision contributed to the action."
],
"score": [
14,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
60ahlz | How are famous artworks priced? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df4rgy2",
"df4qnqw"
],
"text": [
"The law of Supply and demand. In the case of a famous artwork, at auction the price is relative to the amount of interest there is in the painting, the relative fame of the artist, whether in fact the artist is living or dead, the condition of the artwork and the amount of disposable income that the competing bidders have to spend. In this case, the presumed supply of the artwork is one, and demand is governed by the factors mentioned. For insurance purposes, the valuation is based on historical prices for similar artworks, the relative fame of the artist and the condition of the artwork. Any damage not consistent with normal aging will signiicantly devalue the artwork.",
"usually at auction, and then whatever the traffic will bear. estimates are usually way off the mark, depending on how famous something actually is"
],
"score": [
18,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60aos2 | How does studying abroad work, and where do I go to look more into it? | Hi, I'm a soon-to-be high school graduate and college freshman, and I've always been interested in studying abroad. However, I don't really know much about it, how it works, or how I'd even apply for it... [This guy]( URL_0 ) has definitely inspired me, I'd love to go to Japan. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df4s9fe"
],
"text": [
"Your university will have a system in place. Talk to them, each university will have a different setup for which schools they have agreements with and such and how the process works. Generally you can't do semester abroad until after your first year of school."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
60b0ta | Why are there a lot more homeless men that homeless women? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df4vkl5"
],
"text": [
"Nationally, about 2/3 of single homeless people are men. So yes, there are definitely more men than women, but it's not as extreme as it seemed to you. Obviously there may be differences depending on the city and other factors. Two large reasons: * Veterans are almost exclusively men, since for decades only men served in the military. A huge number of homeless are veterans because their disability and PTSD prevents them from getting a job. * This may be uncomfortable, but women typically have the option of selling their bodies for money, and men do not. Some women choose to go this route to avoid homelessness."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60bf4l | Why does the Armenian genocide get much more attention than the Greek and Assyrian genocides, and how much do these groups differ ethnically? | Thank you | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df4ytd4",
"df4zmh4",
"df55qf7"
],
"text": [
"They're all part of the same series of pogroms aimed at non-Muslims in Western Asia and the Balkans, but the length and scope of the Armenian Genocide wasn't matched until Hitler. Then there's the fact that there was a really concerted effort to act like nothing really happened.",
"You say that now but that's only recently. Not that long ago most people didn't know anything about it. Which makes the title very unsettling for me because I remember when people asked the very same thing about the Armenian genocide being unknown. The reason why is people got together to inform others. I learned about it through System of a Down whose members are all of Armenian decent.",
"I only briefly studied this in history classes, so I can totally be off base here. But the Greek and Assyrian massacres get less publicity because they're generally seen more like, putting down insurrections against the Ottoman authorities, whereas, the Armenian genocide had a less defensible--if you can even defend a massacre--justification. And like others noted, it so happens that the U.S. has a huge Armenian population, and they've led a media campaign for years to get recognition for it -- and the Turks keep vehemently denying it. There's almost a 'Streisand effect' being created with the Armenian genocide controversy."
],
"score": [
39,
16,
10
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
60bpx1 | Why were vets from Vietnam treated so poorly during the war? | Why were the returning Vietnam vets from the war received so poorly by the American public? The same America who lionized its own returning veterans from WWII around 20 years earlier? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df51rm8",
"df5h4z2"
],
"text": [
"The American war against Vietnam was the first war during which a significant number of citizens first questioned, then rejected the official justification for the war, with millions eventually concluding that this was a war of aggression for control of strategic resources and trade routes. Not all Vietnam Vets were treated poorly by the public: many enlisted soldiers and even more veterans built the GI Resistance movement in the US, offering support and assistance to individual vets while working nationally in alliance with the broad anti-war movement. The worst treatment of vets during and in the aftermath of the war was by the US Government, which failed to provide anything like enough medical support while pouring millions of dollars into military weapons and tactics that the rest of the world considered war crimes. If you were asking about vets being spit on, [that's a whole other story.]( URL_0 )",
"News footage of children on fire running down the street after a napalm bombing of their village did not sit well with the American public."
],
"score": [
22,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/04/30/debunking_a_spitting_image/"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
60ceem | Why Are Animated Movies Almost Never Nominated For Best Picture? | Inside out won "Best animated Film" but wasn't even nominated for best picture. Is this just an Oscar thing where animated films can't win the title that basically means "Best Movie," or do the people who make the nominations dislike animated movies? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df5dqbe"
],
"text": [
"That's because, at least in the US, animation is, for the most part, still relegated to and stigmatized as a \"children's medium\" (this is certainly not the case in Japan, for instance). And while there has been a small break from the Disney-fied type of animated movie in the US, the live-action movie is still seen as \"real\" or \"serious\" film. However, the distinction does seem to be getting blurrier as technology makes CGI a bigger and bigger part of live-action movies themselves, while the recent explosion in animated movies does seem to promise that US animation might eventually escape the \"kindergarten ghetto\"."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
60fc0n | Why does the word "extraordinary" mean "not ordinary" instead of "extra ordinary"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df5y2jr",
"df5y1ur",
"df5yqvi",
"df5yvjv"
],
"text": [
"\"Extra\" means \"outside of\" or \"beyond\". Extraordinary means \"out of the ordinary\". Similarly, \"extraterrestrial\" means \"outside of Earth\". The meaning of \"extra\" as \"more\" is derived from \"beyond the expected amount\".",
"It doesn't mean 'not ordinary'. It means it goes beyond the ordinary. It's when something has taken an ordinary concept and expanded on it beyond what's normal. Same way that 'extraterrestrial' means that something is from beyond this planet.",
"\"Extra,\" as we use it as a standalone word in English, is literally a shortened form of \"extraordinary.\" Extra itself is a suffix meaning \"outside\" so, extraordinary (or just extra) is \"outside the ordinary.\" So when we say \"extra cheese\" we mean \"An extraordinary amount of cheese.\" Thus, \"Extra ordinary\" would literally mean \"extraordinarily ordinary.\"",
"\"Extra\" means \"outside of\", not \"very\". Thus extracurricular, extrajudicial, extraneous. Extraordinary means outside of the ordinary."
],
"score": [
28,
7,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60fg32 | Before we saw the Earth for the first time in space, how did we know what our continents and lands looked like? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df66xe4",
"df5ytxx"
],
"text": [
"Let's say that it is 1920 (so, no GPS other satellites). You have just found a island in the Pacific and want to know where it goes on the map. There are two things you would need to figure out to do that: how far north or south is the island, and how far east or west it is. One way to do this is by sighting the stars. The stars look like they are fixed to a sort of celestial sphere that rotates around the Earth, with its axis of rotation going through our north and south poles. By looking at the north-south positions of the stars, you can figure out how tilted the celestial sphere appears to be from your position, which tells you how far north you are. For instance, if you see the North Star, you can almost directly read your north-south position. If it's overhead, you're close to the North Pole, and if it's on the horizon, your near the equator. Determining your latitude (east-west) [EDIT: sorry, that should be longitude] position is much more tricky, and there is a long history concerning it, but it basically boils down to clocks. As the celestial sphere spins in sky, the stars will appear to be in different positions east or west depending on how far east or west you are. If you have an accurate clock and a star chart, you can determine where the stars would be at that time if you were at a reference point on the Earth (for instance Greenwich, England). Looking at where the stars actually are in your sky at that time, you can determine how far east or west you are. A book that's well worth a read on this subject is *Longitude*. It discussed the problems and history of determining your position while navigating.",
"Cartography is a very complicated issue. That's why the old maps sometimes look a bit off. Once navigational instruments were perfected (compass, sextant, telescopes, -cartography is closely related to astronomy-), it was very \"easy\" to position coastlines on a map. [This map]( URL_1 ) is ~ 900 years old, you can see that Italy is very... imaginative. [This one]( URL_0 ) not yet 500. Every single line on it has a meaning. It's a bit off, but it's not bad. As soon as latitudes and (the harder to measure) longitudes could be correctly measured, drawing maps was not (as) hard. It must be said that drawing on a map (flat) what the Earth (round) looks like remains a very complicated task. At the beginning of the 20th century things got a lot better. Aerial photography (balloons, planes). After that, satellites."
],
"score": [
110,
84
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Fern%C3%A3o_Vaz_Dourado_1571-1.jpg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartography#/media/File:TabulaRogeriana_upside-down.jpg"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60gh3p | difference between 3 year and 4 year bachelors degree | I know many countries such as in Europe and Australia have 3 year bachelors degrees which are default there, so I'm wondering how they differ from normal 4 year degrees in North America. What's the catch? How can you finish a program that normally takes 4 years, in 3 years? Do the people in Europe and Australia learn less, or have to do less, that they can graduate a year earlier? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df66t8y",
"df6f3iy",
"df6cz9o"
],
"text": [
"In England there are no general education requirements at university, and there's not really a concept of majors and minors. You pick a course at the start, and you follow that course throughout those three years. E.g. If you do physics, you will only have classes related to physics. Some courses do allow you to take a few classes from other departments, but only a few. Compare that to the US system where as I understand it, you have much more freedom to pick and choose classes. This means English university education is much more focused, so you can get it done in less time, at the cost of having a less rounded education. Another relevant thing is the pre-university education is also more focused. At age 16 students usually pick 3 to 5 subjects and learn only those. So going into university they usually already have fairly in depth knowledge of their chosen subject, or at least things that are relevant to it.",
"I've studied in both the U.S (4 year) and the U.K (3 year) and the main reason is *general education*. For context I was always studying 'Business' In my year at america I did a handful of business topics, an art topic, an english language topic and some other random things. These all counted towards my degree. In england I studied only business topics, and they were sometimes spanning the whole year (not just one semester). 3 year courses are usually much more focused, 4 year can afford to have more generalized education which supposedly gives you a 'better worldview/approach to later life/etc/etc/etc' but I think it's just to add more debt.",
"Canada has both 3 and 4 year university bachelor degrees. Usually, a 3 year degree will be a \"general\" degree (e.g. Bachelor of Science) whereas a 4 year degree with be specific (e.g. Bachelor of Science in Physics)."
],
"score": [
50,
14,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
60gsnj | Since US news outlets are privately owned businesses, is it legal for the President to endorse or villify specific ones or are there certain rules allowing media outlets to be treated differently than other businesses? | Certainly the President needs to defend themselves and attack specific news stories and even the way stories are presented. My question pertains to generalized "this business is bad and this business is good." EDIT: Thank you to anyone who has insight on this but please keep things limited to legal issues rather than moral or ethical ones. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df690i3"
],
"text": [
"It is perfectly legal for the President to endorse or vilify news agencies or any other business as they desire. The only area in which there is some danger of rules violation is if the President is obtaining financial benefit through such behaviors, but otherwise their ability to express themselves is as free as anyone else (and their exposure to libel/slander prosecution is as open as well)."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
60gvd0 | if judges are just supposed to interpret and uphold the law, how can there be some judges that are 'friendlier' to left or right politically? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df696iw",
"df68z06",
"df69djt"
],
"text": [
"So the thing is, when it comes to interpreting the law, there are different ways that reasonable people would interpret the same laws. These aren't as simple as \"left-wing or right-wing\" interpretations but often come down to some degree of legal positivism vs. natural law. Let's take the classic case of Roe v. Wade for example. You're a judge and a plaintiff is arguing that she has a fundamental right to have an abortion. How do you interpret the law? Judge #1 says that our constitution was clearly intended to establish a limited government and the Bill of Rights establishes that. Even if the Constitution doesn't explicitly say so, there's an inherent recognition that humans have bodily dignity that the government cannot violate. As such, the woman has the right to decide what to do with her body and the government cannot stop that. Judge #2 says that in a democratic society, the people make the laws. The Constitution says nothing about abortion or bodily dignity so we shouldn't assume that it applies unless the people make a law saying so. Instead, the people made a law saying abortion should be illegal and we should respect that until the people change their minds and repeal that law. Both of these are reasonable interpretation of the law and come down to how that judge interprets our legal system. The by-product of this is that one judge's interpretation favors traditionally liberal policies while the other judge's interpretation favors conservative policies.",
"You've said it yourself - their job is to *interpret* the law. As such, there is some room for subjectivity and for a judge's particular opinions to influence their judgement. Furthermore, many laws are inherently subjective - for example any law which mentions what a \"reasonable\" person would have done.",
"Because the interpretation can vary. Let's take a very recent real-world example. You're a judge. Let's say you are given two key facts: 1. The president has the authority to restrict entry into the US for people from specific countries. 1. Some people have already been given the right to enter the country by being granted a visa. So, a case comes before you on behalf of a visa holder whose passport is from one of those countries. What do you do? The law says that the president can prevent them from entering the country. The law also says that they are allowed to enter the country. Conflicting laws. They can't *both* be right in this situation. So as a judge, you have to look at the laws, the Constitution, precedent, and so on to decide what to do."
],
"score": [
67,
5,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60h0r2 | Why are there no comedic conservative pundits? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df6awn0",
"df6ath6",
"df6aq11",
"df6bqiq",
"df6a7a9",
"df6al0k",
"df6d27d",
"df6etnf"
],
"text": [
"Comedy and satire tends to focus on punching up: on mocking authorities and those in power. Conservative ideology tends to hold authorities as sacrosanct, and criticizing and mocking those is seen as immoral. That makes it really hard to do good conservative political satire. Conservatives inherently want to celebrate the status quo (that's what conservatism means: to conserve), and it's really really hard to write good jokes about how \"the people at the top deserve to be on top because they're the best\", and poor people deserve to be poor\". Political satire is subversive, and there are few things conservatism hates more than that. Additionally, political satire tends to thrive on diversity, on having access to a broad variety of experiences and viewpoints. It's hard to come up with good jokes, and the more different experiences you have access to, the more material you have to draw on. If your neighbor is Hispanic, your friend is gay and you've got a few black people on staff, that means you'll be exposed to thoughts and ideas and reactions different from yours. And these different thoughts can help inspire and expand your work. However, exposure to diverse experiences and viewpoints tend to correlate strongly with liberal views (people who live in cities, where they meet lots of people of different backgrounds, are overwhelmingly liberal).",
"Comedy tends to be subversive, challenging the status quo. When you make fun of something, you are implying that it needs to change. Conservatism is about largely about preserving how thing are (or were). It is harder to find human in that.",
"Penn Jillette is more libertarian than conservative. Joe Rogan tends to be more conservative/republican AFAIK. Kelsey Grammar is mixed comedic/dramatic, but is republican",
"Conservatives tend to use talk radio: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, etc. Offhand I can't think of any liberal call-in radio hosts with a comparable format; they're all comic pundits instead.",
"Jessie Waters tries, he jives with Fox viewers anyway. Uhhh, there's a pretty funny guy Bill O'Reilly hangs out with a lot, does shows with and all that, but I don't remember his name (Dennis?). They're out there, just unsurprisingly not as popular.",
"There's some, but there is a much smaller audience for it. Fox has tried the late night comedy stuff, but never caught on and wasn't particularly funny. The target Demographic for that sort of thing is young male which tends to be overwhelmingly liberal. If you look on the internet there's some conservative comedy like Steven Crowder, but it's still not as popular. It's kind of like saying why isn't there women's basketball on TV? Because the demographic of people who watch basketball prefer male basketball.",
"A lot of it has to do with the current culture that political parties are aligned with. For better or for worse, Republicans have distanced themselves from more artistic endeavors and diversity whereas Liberals have embraced them. In order to be a successful comedian, you're going to be working in an industry with a ton of diversity of every kind and you're going to be working a lot with people whose politics you disagree with strongly. Basically a Republican comedian has to seek out a career path their party doesn't value and constantly work with people who they disagree with.",
"Demographics is the primary reason. Conservatives skew older, are more likely to be married, more likely to have children and more likely have professional careers. All of this means they're less likely to be staying up late at night, visiting comedy clubs or even watching significant amounts of television. If you're building an audience around people regularly watching your show at midnight, most of the people up at that hour will be young people with few traditional life responsibilities - and most of that demographic will be left-leaning. The arts in general is also more left-leaning, which tends to get a false impression of the overall political views of the nation. Consider Rush Limbaugh vs. Jon Stewart. Both are 'comedy pundits'. But Limbaugh was doing it long before Stewart came along, is still doing it after Stewart has left and has maintained an order of magnitude larger audience than Stewart ever did. But Stewart is a much more significant *celebrity*, often appearing on other media platforms. In practice, this means that you're likely to know who Stewart is even if you never watched his show, while few people who aren't regular listeners know much of anything about Limbaugh beyond the fact that he's a conservative talk show host."
],
"score": [
15,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60h8w4 | Why haven't we heard much about alien abductions since the 70s? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df6c96e",
"df6d1vh",
"df6ctj0"
],
"text": [
"Alien abductions, much like other weird crazes and hysteria, were the result of a fad. For whatever reason the notion caught people's attention and suddenly it was happening everywhere. It's happened in the past with other things like mediums and seances being a huge thing that just lost popularity and died down. A huge part of the reason it died down along with UFO sighting stories, bigfoot sightings, ghost sightings, etc. is the 70's were the era where personal photography was becoming more affordable, more popular, and better quality. In modern times, over 90% of adults in America own cell phones, so more or less half of the country has a high quality camera on them at all times. If you wanted to tell a story about how you got abducted by aliens these days, question number one would be \"where the hell was your phone when it happened?\"",
"Also, is like to point out that since the introduction of smart phones, which have given instant HD recording ability to millions across the world, not one credible video of a UFO has been taken.",
"Because space got boring after we went to the moon. Pseudoscience tends to be faddish, and links into whatever is hot the time. Space as a big deal in the 1970s, so space related weirdness had an interested audience. After space travel become more ordinary and alien abductions were debunked, the public lost interest. The people who were being abducted in the 1970s today are watching vaccines turn their kids autistic and getting sick from wifi."
],
"score": [
9,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60hlyy | Why is US Politics so set on people being either Conservative or Liberal? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df6fhuh"
],
"text": [
"Because politics in the US is \"first past the post\" (meaning 50% + 1 vote wins everything), you tend to get 2 major parties. These parties align with ideas as part of their platform. There are a lot of ideas that are not inherently conservative or liberal. For example, if being conservative means \"smaller government = better,\" then how is opposing marriage equality conservative? It's putting government into private lives. The opposite could be said about marriage equality being liberal. Supporting marriage equality means removing government. The point I'm making is that people in general don't really belong to the point of view of all one or the other. People are issues voters. But they'll take the side that matches their issues the closest. This is why you see a politician like Bernie Sanders become popular with people of different political stripes. He's not an issues candidate, he's populist. He is more about \"whatever we are doing, let's do it correctly and fairly.\" That's very resonant and shows that most people are in the middle, and then there are voters that just want to \"pick their team and go with it.\""
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60hndf | Why is Norway consistently the "Happiest Country on Earth"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df6fqyp",
"df6gntb"
],
"text": [
"Because they are a homogenous, small population, and because they are rich from having large oil resources. Money solves a lot of problems and having everyone share similar values and culture avoids conflict",
"That is the case. The are #1 2017 but was only #4 2016 They have been in the top five since the first report in 2012 and it is Denmark that usually have been #1 You can read it at URL_0 A quick look at the report gives the following explanation > Three-quarters of the differences among countries, and also among regions, are accounted for by differences in six key variables, each of which digs into a different aspect of life. > These six factors are GDP per capita, healthy years of life expectancy, social support (as measured by having someone to count on in times of trouble), trust (as measured by a perceived absence of corruption in government and business), perceived freedom to make life decisions, and generosity (as measured by recent donations). The top ten countries rank highly on all six of these factors. And the measurement is done for the whole population."
],
"score": [
13,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://worldhappiness.report/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60ihxt | If the current FBI investigation indicates the results of the US election were tampered with by a foreign nation, what happens? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df6nmn2",
"df6nh7d"
],
"text": [
"OK, first of all, let's be clear. There is no evidence or suspicion that the voters did not decide this election. The election apparatus of the US is very complex and every state has it's own. A foreign power would literally need to hack 50 elections to hack the American system. However, you can hack an election without hacking an election. What happened in the recent US election is that a foreign power used illegal hacking to obtain information critical of one side, they made that information public and the voters punished that side because of it. There is no indication that the proper votes were not counted, rather people think that the public was unduly influenced by prejudicial information. And there's nothing illegal with influencing the public! The public is allowed to consider whatever they want. The Russians obtained information and used that information to influence the American electorate, but ti was still the electorate that decided the election! There is some question if the Russians did this influencing and hacking at the behest of the Trump campaign. That would be incredibly difficult to prove. And it's never happened before so we have no idea what would happen. What is supposed to happen is that Congress would impeach Trump, the Senate would try him and convict him of some kind of electoral misconduct and that would result in him no longer being president. There would be no new election. The US system has no provision for voiding an election and calling a new one like that. Pence would become president until the next election date. If Pence were also impeached it would go down the line of succession to Paul Ryan. All hail President Ryan!! Fuck.",
"Regarding impeachment. Impeachment is a political process. If the members of congress which to begin impeachment proceedings (and wish to remove someone from office) it is **entirely** at their discretion. They can't be compelled to impeach, or not impeach. The process if it happened would happen the normal way. Otherwise there isn't really a precedent. The constitution says congress has the authority to validate election results, which they've done, so there's no obvious (or even not-so-obvious) justification for invalidating anything. If the president shouldn't be president the only real option for that to happen is congress removing him through impeachment."
],
"score": [
26,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60jhx7 | Why isn't alcohol a schedule 1 controlled drug? | According to URL_0 "Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse" By this standard alcohol has to legally be labeled as a schedule 1 controlled drug. Why isn't it? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df6wuyt",
"df6vk1t",
"df6whjx"
],
"text": [
"Precedence, History, and desire of the population. Precedence: Humans have been using alcohol to a very high degree for a very long time. History: The United States banned alcohol nationwide for over a decade in the 1920's and 30's. It failed even worse than the drug war is currently failing. Desire of the population: The Legislative Branch has delegated the authority to schedule drugs to the Executive Branch. Both are answerable to the American population via elections. The American population would be overwhelmingly upset if this were to occur, and the politicians who allowed it to happen would have a difficult time in their reelection campaign.",
"It was, it caused all sorts of organized crime and outrage... check out the prohibition era some time...",
"The short answer is **legacy**. Humans have been drinking alcohol for millennia across all cultures, races, creeds and castes. It has been grandfathered into legality as a result. Prohibition in the US did attempt to reign it in, but you won't find a single historian that believes it was any kind of success unless you count the mob."
],
"score": [
11,
9,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
60jy6v | What is the Bible all about? | I've never read it nor opened it. Like tell a summary that encompasses all the books in the series. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df6zrn4",
"df7hcpg",
"df738wi",
"df7gln5",
"df70iry"
],
"text": [
"God made everything. Man lived in paradise but fucked it up by giving in to temptation. Now we have to live in the real world. Jews are the chosen people for whom God revealed the rules on how to live. Here are the rules on how to live correctly, and stories about bad shit that happened to people who didn't follow the rules. ******** Guy named Jesus comes along, and he's the literal son of God. He's here to correct all the mistakes we've made in trying to live correctly. Jesus choses to die and in doing so allowed everyone to be forgiven of the mistakes they've made, as long as they say sorry. Bunch more stuff on how to live correctly, with Jesus' updated teachings.",
"The \"Old Testament\" is a collection of various books, referred to by Jewish people as the *Torah*. The main five books of the *Torah* are: * Gensis: How God made the world * Exodus: The Jews escape slavery in Egypt * Leviticus: A collection of laws and rituals that should be followed * Numbers: The Jews wander the desert for 40 years and finally make it to the promised land * Deuteronomy: A collection of speeches by Moses on how to properly live within the promised land The \"New Testament\" is a collection of gospels and speeches by the disciples of Jesus, who in Christianity is believed to be the son of God, as well as an aspect of God himself. The many Gospels outline the life of Jesus, leading to his crucifixion by the Romans, and his ultimate rebirth and ascent into Heaven after three days of torment in Hell. Jewish people follow most of the rules outlined in the *Torah*, and do not believe in the divinity of Jesus, and thus don't teach or follow the Gospels. Christians tend to follow more of the Gospels, believing it is evidence of a new agreement with people and God, teaching mostly from them rather than from the *Torah*. If you're curious about reading about the main events in it but more accessible, there's an old book from the 90's called *The Book of God, The Bible as a Novel* that's a pretty good read and tells a lot of key moments in a more modern format, rather than as translated passages from a thousands of years old text.",
"The first part of the bible is mostly a history of the jewish people, a recounting of stories of kings and wars, a listing of laws, a geneology, and a creation mythology. Some books delve much closer looks at individual people who are considered important or whose lives serve as useful morality stories. Throughout is the pervasive thread of how rises and falls of fortune are attributable to God. There are also books of prophesies, books of poems/songs (psalms), and books of quotes to live your life by (proverbs). The first 4 books of the new testament are three different tellings of the life, teachings, and death of Jesus. Most of the rest of the new testament is stories of those and subsequent followers and the establishment of the church. Many of these, rather than written histories, are a collection of letters from notable church leaders to different congregations around the greco roman area (corinthians (church in corinth), ephisians (chuch of Ephesus, etc.) It is capped off by a dream transcription that is seen as a prophesy (revelations). I'm sure i skipped a lot, but that's the gist. Part 1: everything a young jew needs to know about their history and culture to geow up to be a good jew Part 2. How to be a good christian.",
"This thread really brought out the edgelords, huh?",
"A megalomaniacal God character creates a universe, gets pissed when his creation doesn't realize how \"awesome\" he is, and punishes them with eternal suffering. He then realizes he's been a bit of a dick, so he sends his son to get tortured and murdered by his creation, to save his creation from himself. As if he wasn't unbearable enough before, he now demands abject praise and worship for giving his creation the gift of not being punished eternally for not realizing how incredibly cool he is."
],
"score": [
16,
10,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
60kae0 | Why does the US have some of the worst schools in developed Nations but some of the best colleges | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df7g0ja",
"df7coco"
],
"text": [
"Public school is free to all and schooling is required unless you homeschool. Some other countries have no requirement to go to school, so only those that really want to be there, or have strong family support, will go. Some countries have free public school only for the best students. If you test out, you have to pay for a private school if you want to continue. A lot of our public schools are great, most are average (duh), and some are poor. Many of the poor ones are in poorer areas. It is interesting that in Hawaii, where all schools are paid by state taxes and not property tax (so not tied to income levels in a neighborhood), there is still a big difference between schools in higher or lower income areas. Parent involvement seems to be the biggest factor.",
"A lot of kids in k-12 don't want to be there (I won't go into the many reasons this is), so they misbehave. Misbehaving students take a disproportionately large amount if a teacher's time, resulting in a lessened experience for all. In contrast, college students pay well to be in class, and try to get the most from it."
],
"score": [
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60kasu | Why do public bathrooms have the toilet paper dispenser at hip level? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df74gum"
],
"text": [
"The vast majority of people shite & wipe while sitting down, only standing up when they finish. The TP is reachable to anyone sitting on the toilet. You might want to check out /r/DoesAnybodyElse if this comes as a surprise to you and want to commiserate with other standing wipers."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60m4ja | Why is fascism so hard to define? | Why is fascism so hard to define? Alternatively, what makes other ideologies easier to define? The wikipedia for [definitions of fascism]( URL_0 ) has 19 different authors and none of them out-rightly agree with the others. What makes it so hard to nail down? Has academia developed a good working definition? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df7ji22",
"df7k14e"
],
"text": [
"I believe at least part of the reason is that \"fascist\" has become sort of a generic insult applied by anyone to one's political opponents. Everyone is trying to find similarities between what their opponents think and what 1930's Italy/Germany did. This creates a [horns effect]( URL_0 ) (a cognitive bias where you associate a negative trait with someone and that thought in your head leads you to start finding many other negative traits in them, even if they don't have those traits). Then there is the issue that people in political science often have an ideological axe to grind, and data in this field is riddled with confounders and multiple possible explanations. This is not like, say, physics, where you go and run an experiment and it decides between competing hypotheses in a relatively conclusive way. In social science, you can [play with p-values]( URL_1 ), for example, in a way that's just not possible in STEM. And this doesn't mean the whole field is invalid, a bunch of ideologues. It is just hard and social scientists are just humans.",
"Its due to a number of reasons 1. democracy is very easy to define because all you need is for everyone (or atleast a large portion of people) to vote and for each vote to be equal 2. The lack of fascist countries. There is a large number of democracies and communist countries compered to those that were fascist some that were fascist were just modeled off a different fascist country. 3. There is large differences between each fascist country make a one size fits all set of rules very difficult"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect#Reverse-halo_effect",
"https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/p-hacking/"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
60mkhy | What exactly did David Rockefeller do for everyone to hate him so much? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df7q6r8"
],
"text": [
"David Rockefeller was the grandson of John D. Rockefeller Sr., the founder of standard oil who amassed a peak net worth of 392 billion dollars(accounting for inflation). David was a banker who was the chairman and chief executive of manhattan chase bank. The first time David Rockefeller came into the public light in any significant way was in 1979, when he, along with Henry Kissinger, convinced the Carter administration to admit the Shah of Iran into the US to receive cancer treatment. This in and of itself was not massively controversial, but the fact that this directly proceeded the Iran Hostage Crisis, which brought Rockefeller and Kissinger under intense scrutiny from the media. David Rockefeller served in an unofficial political role in that he advised every president since Eisenhower, and sometimes served as an unofficial ambassador for high level business. He was offered several official positions in politics, including secretary of treasury under carter, but he refused these offers. His family's power and connections gave him influence across the world, and with many foreign governments. Rockefeller also had some ties to the CIA, though there is no evidence that he was ever personally involved with them. David was well known for philanthropy, though most of his contributions were to organizations already associated with the family. He donated heavily to MoMA, both in donations of money as well as paintings, many from his personal collection. However, Rockefeller is the subject of conspiracy theories that he was a member of an illuminati like group, who controlled world affairs and finances unseen, influencing and controlling governments. These theories are largely baseless, while Rockefeller did have a great deal of wealth and connections, there is little to no evidence that his advice or influence significantly shaped world politics."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60n77w | Why is Ireland divided into two (Northern Ireland and Ireland) and is there a chance that they'll ever be combined back into a single Ireland? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df7poug",
"df7oths",
"df7z02j",
"df7rps7"
],
"text": [
"The entire island of Ireland was once a separate country, but became part of the United Kingdom in 1801. It was an unhappy relationship, and Britain's treatment of Ireland during the infamous Great Famine of 1845-1851 caused a great deal of resentment. Movements sprang up campaigning for Ireland to regain its independence, mostly among the majority Catholic population. Independence was less popular among the minority Protestant population, descended from immigrants from Scotland and so concentrated mainly in the north of the country. In 1916, things got violent: an armed insurrection by a relatively small group (the Easter Rising) was met with brutal violence from the British, which only made the Republican cause more popular among the Irish. The violence escalated into full-blown civil war. In 1921, a treaty was signed giving Ireland almost complete independence, but with a clause allowing Northern Ireland to remain part of the UK. Northern Ireland, which has roughly half-and-half Loyalist (Protestant) and Republican (Catholic) immediately invoked that clause, and so Ireland was split. There followed several decades of terrorism in Northern Ireland, as Loyalists and Republicans battled it out on the streets, and the British Army was deployed to keep the peace -- not very successfully, and it was often accused of being anything but impartial (in one notorious event, the Bogside Massacre -- popularly known as \"Bloody Sunday\" and the subject of a U2 song -- 26 unarmed civilian protestors were shot by British soldiers, 14 of them fatally). The violence, for the most part, was finally ended about ten years ago (the Army withdrew in 2007), and the province is now governed by a power-sharing agreement, with two leaders: one Republican and one Loyalist. Most civilians would probably tell you that they don't mind whether the province remains British or is reunited with Ireland, just so long as there's no repeat of the endless violence of the 20th century. Because of various agreements and treaties between Ireland and the UK, the border is not a very big problem at the moment. Both countries are part of a Common Travel Area, which guarantees freedome of movement (the CTA includes a few territories that are not part of the European Union, which is one reason Britain and Ireland opted out of the Schengen Agreement which abolished routine passport controls between most member states -- it would have conflicted with the CTA). The problem now is Brexit. Northern Ireland actually voted Remain, and this has prompted some people to suggest that now is the time for Northern Ireland to leave the UK and rejoin Ireland. Brexit will mean that the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland forms part of the border with the EU, and it's not known how that will affect trade and the CTA.",
"England had claimed lordship over Ireland for many years (made official in 1801). However, there was a growing desire for Ireland to rule itself and not be part of the United Kingdom. Eventually this sentiment grew enough that they declared independence in 1919. The Irish War of Independence ended in 1921 with treaty that allowed Ireland to rule itself, but with a provision that Northern Ireland could leave and return to the UK (which it did). Why? Well, Northern Ireland just happened to have a high proportion of people who, cultural and politically, sympathized with the British. They were unionists (they believed Ireland should be part of the UK). They were Protestant (as opposed to the traditional Irish Catholic), and identified more as British than Irish.",
"One important element to add to the other answers is that in the early 1600s, a large amount of people from Britain were moved to Ulster to settle there. Ulster is the northern province in Ireland. This historical process is known as the Ulster Plantation. This explains the long historical connection between that part of Ireland and Britain. Ulster is a province of 9 counties. 6 of those counties stayed with the United Kingdom to form Northern Ireland after the treaty in 1921. The other 3 counties in Ulster became independent along with the rest of Ireland, to form what we now know as the Republic of Ireland.",
"Like many things, it all comes down to war and religion. The UK decided Ireland should be a UK territory, and the UK had a strong army so it was a done deal. At the time Ireland was mostly Roman Catholic, and so was the UK so that was fine. In the 16th century the UK broke away from the Roman Catholic church to form the church of England. This happened in Ireland as well, except only the church leadership actually did it. The people remained mostly Roman Catholic. This created a situation where the leadership of the country was all protestant, and the people were all RC. This... was not super popular. The Irish people were seen by the UK people as less than and were generally treated fairly poorly. The UK does not have a stellar reputation for treating the natives in its colonies super well, and that was on full display here. The Irish people were not wealthy, were not well fed. Most of the crops grown on Irland were shipped to the UK not used to feed the locals. Then in the mid-1800s, a famine came. This heavily impacted Ireland and many people were starving. Most of the Irish people were living off of potatoes. The famine was caused by a blight that killed potato crops. Irland actually grew enough food to feed itself but shipped most of it to the UK. During the worst times of the famine, the UK still demanded that the food shipments continue. The Irish people were literally starving and the UK government was demanding crop shipments... this did not make them very popular. So in the early 1900s, the people of Irland decided that they would like to be self-governing. The UK did not agree and there was a war. Not like a war type war, but rather some rebels being brutally suppressed by the government. There were some parliament votes, lots and lots of fighting, the Irish parliament declaring independence and the UK being like.. nope. In 1921 that war ended by splitting the country into 2. There was the Republic of Irland (the south), that was independent and mostly catholic. Then there was Northern Irland. Northern Ireland was where the majority of the ruling class lived. Many of them were protestant (either British decided or because they converted to curry favor with the British). Northern Irland stuck with the UK, the Republic of Irland went independent. However, this did not end the conflict. Within Northern Irland, there has still been a fair amount of conflict between the people who wanted to remain part of the UK and those that wanted to go independent (or join up with the south). The shooting ended in the late 90s, although I think there are still some hard feelings on both sides. As of now, Northern Irland is still part of the UK. Although they have enjoyed being part of the EU and the UK leaving the EU might fire up those dreams of independence."
],
"score": [
52,
8,
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60nwvt | How did the acceptance and promotion of drug and alcohol use (e.g., Marijuana, Percocet, codeine, Xanax, Hennessy, Molly) become so common in pop culture, notably the music industry? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df7uj60",
"df7utee"
],
"text": [
"It always has been, pretty much. Different eras had different addictions, of course, and alcohol is the most common in older times. Removing the alcohol, since that's legal, you still get references to drug use as early as the 1930s, with artists like Herb Morland and Cab Calloway. In the 70s, there was a growth of hard drug references in songs, like \"Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds\" (LSD).",
"Drugs and drug use has always been a bit of the \"underground\" culture in society. Lots of listeners and musicians were experimenting with drugs and enhancing their own experiences with music through drug use. Music during the mid 60s was diving into extreme physcadellics and going against the \"man.\" I think that rebellion and disestablishmentarianism has further cultivated the popularity of drug use in the world of music. When the government bans things that people take pleasure in, and a musician who has a huge following speaks out against that ban, it can have a tremendous effect on culture."
],
"score": [
13,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60o5ql | Why do country's with huge populations (India, China) not do very well in the FIFA World Cup? | You'd think that with such a large selection for it's squad they could rustle up some dominant players | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df7wl65",
"df7wir2"
],
"text": [
"There's so much more that goes into a good sports team (not just soccer, any sport) than just talent. You have to have a good coach (or in this case, manager), enough fans that companies consider it worth the money to invest in the organization, and good scouts to find that talent. You're right that, with such large populations, these countries should have great national teams, but if theirs not enough money, those players won't play, or the scouts might not be able to find them, or the manager/coach might not be good enough to utilize the talent. Comparatively, Portugal and Brazil, countries known for having great national teams, sink a LOT of money into soccer. It's the national pastime for them, everyone plays it as a kid, and they have good enough organizations that they can find those great players and groom them from a young age. Tldr: it's more about the money than volume of people",
"It's mostly about the culture and how much it is stressed. Look at Canada and hockey. They have a low population, but they're dominant at hockey because it's part of the culture. The US has nearly 350 million people but there's a big discrepancy between how successful the mens team and womens teams are when it comes to the rest of the world."
],
"score": [
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
60ra7h | What did Hillary Clinton have to do with the Benghazi attack? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df8o9ri",
"df8ofr5",
"df8u0kp"
],
"text": [
"As Secretary of State, one of her duties was to distribute the resources of the Sate Department, which includes embassies. Which means she was responsible for determining how much security there was at the embassy in Benghazi during the attacks. The argument that she was ultimately responsible for the deaths during the attack is that she didn't adequately staff the security there. Other complaints are that she tried to lie about how bad the attacks were and cover up her failure. Some more extreme theories are that she knew the attacks were going to happen and pulled security so that soldiers and diplomats were killed to further her own political agenda, unfortunately I don't understand these theories enough to explain them any better. But, Congressional hearings and investigations have found no evidence that Hillary Clinton did anything wrong, lie about the facts in any malicious or official capacity, nor was there any gross negligence in her distribution of security at US embassies. EDIT: To add, my personal belief is the whole Benghazi incident was an unfortunate event and the attacks on Hillary Clinton were politically motivated in spite of the fact she was obviously not at fault. I did try to keep my answer unbiased, but feel I should mention my opinion none the less.",
"As much as i cant stand the woman, she didnt have much direct involvement in the event. Yes, there was a helicopter ready to go but was told to stand down. Thats fact. The story line has been turned to focus on support not being stationed there because of cuts when the previous was the issue. Now, where more hate for Hillary comes in with regard to Benghazi is that she lied and made up bullshit reasons for it. You might recall her story of a youtube video and whatever else she claimed. She dismissed the loss and even claimed since then how Libya went smoothly and no lives were lost. Psst...Hillary...Benghazi is in Libya. Also, and maybe more importantly, it was Hillary who pushed for the invasion and overthrow of the Libyan leadership. She is a bit of a war monger. Trump might be fucking Putin in the butt or taking the dick but Hillary would be preparing for war with Russia by now. If any nation can give us two black eyes and a broken jaw, its Russia.",
"Let's not forget that she also took part in helping to overthrow Ghadaffi, who although was a brutal dictator, led his country as the richest country/state in Africa. Once she meddled with their affairs and got him ousted, Libya became the mess that we see today."
],
"score": [
13,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60rxql | I often hear that "in western society, breasts are sexualized but in other places [I commonly hear Africa], they are not sexualized and therefore not as big a deal." So why is it different in western society, why did they become sexualized? | I am aware it has to do with media but what happened that the media decided to make breasts sexualized objects? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df8tv56",
"df8v1ai",
"df8x2zx",
"df8v9ez",
"df8wzar",
"df90tre"
],
"text": [
"The Abrahamic religions stress modesty in women. These religions were central to the rise and formation of Western culture. So even though religion is becoming less important in the West, the old cultural standards are still in effect.",
"The cultures in which breast are not sexualized are ones that are nude or near nude much of the time. Europe and Asia have long histories of being clothed, often in complex clothing. This increases the base modesty level of the society. The modesty of society is then increased further by religious and societal customs.",
"I believe one of the most significant factors was that aristocratic women tended not to breast feed their children, they had a wet nurse on staff to breast feed the babies. The noble breast sort of isn't seen it isn't displayed it doesn't have utility. Its kept in sort of mint condition. So you have this sort of class-based thing going on where among the ruling class the breasts are sort of *special* they're set aside and flopping breasts around and feeding babies with them is for the poor people. What happens later on is that you get the middle class rising up the wealthy business people who start getting more and more political power and they all wanted to absorb all the sort of cultural weight of the nobility. The middle class was getting money and power but they wanted that respectability and esteem of the upper class. So they really pushed the veneration of the breast even further. It wasn't any longer just about noble women not wanting the inconvenience of constantly having to feed a baby with their breasts and having milk stains on them, it was something of status. And once it becomes something that has status it effectively becomes seductive. Like fancy cars have a seductive element to them people swoon over them. It becomes something that's powerfully desirable for reasons not really related to its exact purpose. And thus essentially transforms into a fetish, the original meaning of the word fetish is an object that is associated with some special power, like a statue or doll that is considered magical. The sexual fetish is giving specifically seductive power to a thing which doesn't have an innately seductive or sexual nature. Eventually when baby formula was invented to replace breastfeeding then every woman's breast could essentially become a sacred thing to be kept in mint condition. So in the 20th century breast fetishism could really take off.",
"Who said it's the media that make breasts sexual?",
"This is probably creepy to ask but this made me wonder: do you guys think that in countries where breast aren't sexualized that they would be grabbed/played with during sexy time? 😇",
"Most african countries (mostly in rural area) to see a mom breastfeeding his baby in public isn't a big deal. Even it easly to spot a mature women sitting in front of her house or walk around in his house topless. And kids see it as normal things But as these countries are in development progress many young girls, women who live in cities keep theirs breastes clothed even at home. Not in public only."
],
"score": [
66,
46,
16,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
60s3el | Why do stereotypes exist? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df8vj37"
],
"text": [
"It comes from how we learn and remember things. It is like a shortcut for our brain to group things based on a real or perceived pattern. For example, a child gets bit by a dog. The child then thinks all dogs will bite them. The child now has a stereotype that all dogs bite. When we were not the dominate species, it would be very beneficial to be able to react fast to a situation without having to sit and rationalize if you should start running."
],
"score": [
16
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60s5z6 | Why did Chinese people like Communism? | I'm one myself and I don't get it. We love money, we love gambling, we love real estate, we're usually distrustful of authority, "FU got mine" is a common mantra, immigrants are known to quietly open businesses in adopted countries. How did something so counter to our nature take hold in China and spread to its diaspora in the 1900s? It's like asking fun-loving Brazilians to adopt Salafist Islam. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df8wl46",
"df8w0nv",
"df8ynsb"
],
"text": [
"*Most* people thrive in some form a market economy- there's a reason communism lost the global war of ideologies very decisively. However, when and how a given society develops a successful market economy is driven by historical circumstances. North Koreans, for example, could be every bit as successful as their southern cousins had politics and geography not cruelly conspired to trap them in their current misery. When the Chinese communists finally achieved control over mainland China, the country was very different from today. It had been humiliated by European colonialism, Japanese colonialism, and the civil war. The cities were ravaged and people were hungry and dispirited. This was a society of people who could barely fathom contemporary American economic achievement, let alone modern China. So when a nation that broken is taken over by charismatic revolutionaries who claim to have the cure for every ill ailing China, it's not hard to see why so many Chinese embraced it. Remember, mostly all they knew before Mao was poverty. Most Chinese weren't even aware of the things a market economy can accomplish. Also recall that during the heyday of Maoist policy (1949-1970's) many people throughout the world understandably felt that to be a communist truly was to be on the \"right side\" of history. The absurdity of communism as a viable economic model was easier to hide from the world's masses during that era, not to mention the visibility of such events as the USSR's emergence from the ashes of WW2 as a global superpower and the American withdraw from Southeast Asia. To their credit, the CCP was much farther ahead of the curve than their Eastern Bloc friends-turned-rivals in terms of recognizing and addressing communism's increasingly apparent structural failures in the last couple decades of the Cold War. The CCP basically had a quiet \"ah yeah, this isn't working out well\" moment in the 1970's and began to gradually mold their Soviet-style economy into its current state as a basically \"state capitalist\" model. tl;dr historic circumstances inside and outside of China made communism's rise pretty understandable, but Chinese leaders were the first communists to recognize its faults and begin to ditch it.",
"The simple answer is that fewer of them \"got theirs\" than did. The Chinese state had been effectively been a puppet of western powers, and exploited. Ultimately communism is the thing people want when they feel exploited by the society. if you're sick of other people making profit off your work and not looking out for you, then you want a socialist state. All there really is is that any political system looks like its right if you're doing well in it. if you're not doing well it starts to look wrong, and if there's a system that promises you can do better it starts to look better than the one you have. There's also a partial fact that many of the groups of people who left China in the 20th century were leaving because they supported the nationalists instead of the communists, and having lost the war they decided to leave the country. So there may be some reality to a difference in a selection bias between Chinese emigrants and the homeland Chinese. Because the people who left in the 20th century may have been specifically fleeing the communist regime. They may have been people with more money or people with more reason to be distrustful of authority.",
"Part of the issue is selection bias. To illustrate the point with a bit of distance let's talk about Cubans. Cuban Americans are the most socially and economically conservative minority group in the country. They regularly vote Republican and a Cuban American was a serious contender for the Republican nomination this year. And yet, Cuba is communist. How do we reconcile this? We reconcile it with the fact that people who are socially and economically conservative in Cuba are far more likely to come into conflict with the regime and therefore to seek asylum in the US. TL;DR people who are happy in China stay in China, people who are unhappy leave. The people you know are almost certainly people who left or their kids."
],
"score": [
8,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
60sckv | when did rotten tomatoes scores become such a huge selling point for movies? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df8x4av",
"df8xmbs"
],
"text": [
"It was a gradual change from critics to crowdsourcing as people slowly started to realize they have more in common with themselves than they do with \"experts\". Rotten Tomatoes won because it was already the platform for the crowdsourcing.",
"critics are notoriously bad with comedies. i think this also contributed to the market demand on the web (young people like to laugh). lately, they seem to be getting less helpful for me. maybe bc they are now owned by warner bros URL_0"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/may/04/warner-bros-rotten-tomatoes-flixster"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60sg00 | Why do so many professional athletes beat their significant others? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df8xzl1",
"df93ufm",
"df8xxbn",
"df903he"
],
"text": [
"I think this comes down to two things. Firstly, visibility; Athletes are public figures meaning that their lives are covered by reporters. I dont know actual statistics on domestic violence but i imagine it may actually be prevalent enough that the number of athletes doing it is actually on par with national or global averages. Secondly; athletes in particularly physical sports (Football, Hockey, Rugby, Boxing etc) are used to expressing themselves violently on the field and it can be hard to turn off. Plus that's completely ignoring factors like CTE and the kinds of women athletes attract. Personally i think its my first point, DV is way more common than most people realise, we just often dont notice cause people hide it. Pro athletes struggle to hide it.",
"Because they're jocks from middle school and they need to beat people in order to not feel insecure :)",
"The only way for this question to be meaningful is if a higher proportion of professional athletes beat their SO's than the typical population. If it's not higher, then there is no point in the distinction of \"professional athlete.\" If it is higher, I dunno, maybe they got small dicks or something.",
"* top athletes at the high school and college level are often sheltered from the consequences of their criminal actions, and continue that behavior as professionals * they are encouraged to be aggressive and violent on the field, and have trouble turning it off * being big and strong, they are more likely to cause serious damage that draws attention to their actions in a way an ordinary person would not * being famous, they are under greater scrutiny * unfortunately, some people try to intentionally bait famous people into violence with the hope of financial gain"
],
"score": [
13,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60swba | Why do people react negatively (or even violently) when presented with evidence that challenge their world view? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df91o10",
"df92c5d",
"df920hb"
],
"text": [
"Psychology major here. We've focused (in my social psychology classes, in particular) on the idea of cognitive dissonance. What this means is: You perceive the world in one way. Reality comes along and shows that you might be wrong. You have two options, according to conventional information processing: accommodation or assimilation, which basically mean that you can either change your world view to incorporate the new idea... Or you can change the idea to fit into your world view. Assimilation and accommodation are how we deal with our world view being challenged. It's much easier for most people to assimilate (change the idea) than it is to accommodate (change the world view). This is why people react violently to reality challenging them. If you'd like me to explain anything further, please let me know. :)",
"No they don't. WHAT ARE YOU TRYING to SAY?!?!!?!!",
"The cognitive dissonance can feel like a threat to one's core identity. And our brains can respond to threats to our identity/ego as if it is a life or death experience. Fight/flight/freeze can get triggered, and an ideological conflict gets upped to predator attack. Adrenaline flows, and inner insane monkey takes over. Argument turns into threat posturing, turns into violence."
],
"score": [
7,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60t0v0 | Why do some words have the same sound in pretty much all languages? | Why do some words like 'mother' or any kind of a negative have an 'm' sound or an 'n' sound to it in majority of the languages? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df97hbk"
],
"text": [
"Two things: One is that sometimes languages are related. They all come from the same \"parent\" language. We call these languages a \"language family\". One big language family is the \"Indo-European\" family. This is a big family of many languages across Europe and all the way to India. We think there was an original language that we call \"Proto-Indo-European\" that is the parent language of all these other languages. Language scientists think that there was a word for \"not\" in this language, and that it sounded a bit like \"ne\". So all the child languages have a similar \"n\" sound for \"not\". But this is only true for languages in this family. In other languages in different families - languages like Japanese or Maori or Mohawk or whatever - they don't have an \"n\" sound for \"not\" at all. The other thing is that the word \"mother\" is a bit special. The \"m\" sound and the \"ah\" sound are some of the first sounds a baby will make, so something like \"mama\" becomes extremely common, even when languages aren't in the same family."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
60t37b | Why Isn't Paternity Testing Following Delivery The Norm? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df939kp",
"df92wmj",
"df9eqo2"
],
"text": [
"Because for every one of these stories you have heard about, the are hundreds (if not more) of stories where there was a loving and trustworthy relationship, and the father was the biological father. It isn't as common of a scenario as the \"reports\" might lead you to believe.",
"1) Because for most people raising the child as their own is more important than actual blood connection. 2) A $200 bill added to the already expensive cost of having a child is not something most parents are willing to have done, and something many are not able to afford.",
"Because the vast vast majority of people have no need for this test. Requiring a test that would only benefit a fraction of the population is absurd."
],
"score": [
12,
12,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60tzds | Why do American's love their flag so much? | Just curious on when/how this came about because other countries' people don't seem have the same passion about their own flag as us Americans do for ours. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df9aw46",
"df9eyyz",
"df990ij"
],
"text": [
"Americans seem to love freedom so much, and have such a focus on our flag, because it represents a great deal about our shared cultural heritage. Many other nations around the world have many hundreds or thousands of years of shared culture and history binding them together. They have traditions that everyone in the country can gather around and connect with. It hasn't always been that way for the US, and still largely isn't. Many people in America today seem to forget that our country is a nation of immigrants. Peoples from all over the world have come to this country, have brought their own cultures and traditions with them, and have largely found that America is a place where they can hold onto what defined them in their home countries, while still becoming \"American,\" too. So there's an element of American society where we have this general culture defined by things like the flag and its colors, or like those national American holidays anyone of any religion can celebrate. The flag, then, becomes the thing that Americans can share, even if two given Americans don't sound the same, look the same, think the same, eat the same, or lead lives that look anything alike. It's not about our flag being better or in some way more a symbol of freedom than any other nation's. It's that the flag, and the freedom it supposedly represents, is what we've built our nation's mythology on.",
"Our country, at its founding, was very new and had no established symbols. There is no monarch, and originally there was no grand capitol building. There is no single main city or location, and no single main geographical feature -- it's too big and spread-out. Thus there was a need for *some* symbol around which people could rally and show their love of their nation. Originally there were two main contenders: the flag, and a female mythical goddess figure called Columbia. The flag eventually became more popular, and today most people don't even know about Columbia.",
"As one who is not an American, my guess is that the answer is far more about culturally ingrained patriotism rather than a hypothetically superior flag. A country founded by violent separation from a colonial empire is a good start and makes for a great national mythos, but I think the culture of it really developed during the Cold War. You basically had the two superpowers of the world waging, among other things, a cultural war over their own people and the rest of the world. Patriotism runs high still in the US and Russia because of it."
],
"score": [
18,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
60ue40 | Why is men's sport watched so so much more than women's? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df9b0oa",
"df9c3nm",
"df9b7lw",
"df9b3qo",
"df9bw3o",
"df9fq3d",
"df9d26a"
],
"text": [
"Because womens is the same but slightly dialed back. People want to see the fastest, hardest hitting, most amazing spectacles and that usually means men's because of physiological differences making men more able to perform those feats",
"The abundance of testosterone simply makes the male body much more effective at physical activity like sports. I'm still a huge fan of woman's UFC though.",
"Because the male leagues are established and have some of the biggest names behind them. Womens sports are catching up, but the games are almost always scaled down versions of the same thing with lesser known athletes and advertising.",
"In the not-so-distant past, sport in general, and professional sport in particular, was seen as a male endeavour. Women occasionally played games for fun, but only men took it seriously. Thankfully, this viewpoint is rapidly dying out, but women's sport is taking time to catch up.",
"Women generally lack the athleticism that males do in some sports. Also by nature (as in its in their DNA) men are a bit more aggressive. This makes me s sports generally (again not always) more entertaining to watch. Also some sports such as football are just too dangerous for females and can't be played due to body structure without having the game severely muted in rules and effect.",
"With a few exceptions like the NCAA or the Olympics, men's sports are rarely just men's sports. They are the \"open\" competition that happens to be filled by men, because of biological realities. Women's sports specifically are for women. It's not surprising to see that the open competition with the best athletes in the world draws more attention than the competition that restricts one half of humans off of the bat, and then puts on an inferior product because of it.",
"Generally speaking women's sports aren't as good athletically and therefore don't receive the same level of ratings, advertisers, etc. Personally, I'm a huge fan of womens beach volleyball during the olympics, much better than mens. And although I'm not a soccer fan I prefer womens soccer to mens soccer because the men spend more time on the ground crying and the women have more balls."
],
"score": [
28,
6,
6,
4,
4,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60vx82 | A law was passed a while back that grants corporations the rights of people | In what ways would a corporation NEED to be treated as a person? The only articles I can find seem to be heavily polarized one way or the other. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df9opje",
"df9ol6h",
"df9ttro",
"df9ql8y",
"df9qhuo",
"df9puc0"
],
"text": [
"This is not true. I understand why you are asking, because many news outlets report it as true, but it is just false. Corporate personhood is the term and it has been around for over 100 years. It means that the people that make up a corporation have the many of the same rights as every other citizen. They can enter into contracts, they can be sued and they can sue people, and 1000's of other legal components. It is a very necessary legal structure that cannot be removed. I mean literally you could not get rid of it without rewriting the vast majority of our laws. And again, it is not new, there was just a prominent court case that pushed it into the public knowledge.",
"The supreme court of the US decision in Citizens United was that corporations have the same \"free speech\" rights as persons. That means that the Government can't make McDonalds say \"You will get fat if you eat this food\". The CU organization made a movie, and the Federal Election Commission said that their movie was illegal political speech by a company. They sued, and won, to assure that companies can say whatever they want, just like individuals. It was a very controversial decision.",
"This isn't exactly what the law actually is. The propaganda here refers to the Supreme Court decision in the \"Citizens United\" case. Here's the back story. Way back in the day, the [Campaign reform act]( URL_0 ) was passed. Among other things, this limited how corporations could spend money that was related to elections. A short time after that, Michael Moore produced and released the film \"Fahrenheit 9/11\", a purely political hit piece on the Bush administration. Conservative groups sued, complaining that this was illegal under the act. Their claim was rejected. Then a conservative group called Citizens United produced a film called \"Hillary the Movie\". This was a purely political hit piece on the Clinton Campaign. Liberal groups sued, complaining that this was illegal under the act. This claim was granted. Citizens United appealed to the Supreme court, and prevailed. What citizens united really says is that just because you pool your money into a 'corporation', you don't lose the right to speak. This is, ironically, MORE FAIR than the prior system... Here's why: If I'm Bill Gates, I can spend my own money in vast sums to do whatever I want in either system. But if I'm Joe Schmoe, I don't have much money... But If I have a million friends that agree with me and we pool our money together, why can't that collective spend it to do the same as Bill Gates can? The rich will always have access to power in government. Maybe that's not right, but do you really think that Bill Gates could not get an audience with the President, regardless of how he spent his money? Allowing others to pool their money to have that same reach is the only really fair solution to an unfair problem. Now, some people say it means money=speech... Perhaps. But again, that's just reality. If you have the money you can broadcast your speech much more widely. Again, it may not be fair, but the other option is giving the government unlimited power to restrict any speech that it deems political, and that's very dangerous. The ability to say not nice things about those in power is the heart and soul of the idea of freedom of speech. And to attack that right is very very dangerous.",
"> In what ways would a corporation NEED to be treated as a person? People haven't given you a really good explanation of this, but the reason corporations *need* to be treated as \"legal persons\" is that, otherwise, the legal process just couldn't work. Say I'm doing advertising work for the Coca-Cola company. I sign a contract with Coca-Cola for their services, which is signed on their end by a vice-president for marketing. Six months later, Coca-Cola fails to pay, and I want to sue them. Well, what if that marketing executive has been fired? What if the entire leadership team is gone? If Coca-Cola wasn't a \"legal person,\" I couldn't just sue the company -- I'd have to find the fired VP and sue him personally. Also, there's the fact that literally thousands and thousands of people are ultimate owners of stock in Coca-Cola -- if the Court awards me a judgement, unless I've found and served each of these people they Court wouldn't have jurisdiction over them and they couldn't be compelled to pay me. Corporate personhood gets around that by creating a legal entity that collects everyone's rights and obligations. Instead of having to figure out how tax liability for Coca-Cola's revenue is apportioned among its thousands of stock owners, the government taxes the company. Instead of having to sign contracts with the thousands and thousands of people who own Coca-Cola, you can sign a contract with the company. If you're poisoned by a bad Coke, you can sue the company without joining each individual employee and owner as a defendant. So when we talk about a corporations \"rights,\" what we're really talking about is the *collective* rights of the individuals that own the company, collated into a single legal nexus. When the Supreme Court is saying that corporations have free speech or religion rights, they're saying that the *owners* have such rights and that these rights can be expressed through the corporation in their name.",
"Corporations have had *some* of the rights of people for centuries...those rights are basically what distinguish a corporation from a business. The right to own property, the right to enter contracts, the right to sue, these have being corporate rights for a long time. A more recent US Supreme Court ruling, *Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission* 558 U.S. 310 (2010), found that corporations had the right to engage in unlimited political speech, so long as they were not directly contributing to a campaign. This gave rise to the various PACs running \"issue\" ads during the election cycle. Many people unfamiliar with the details of the and the law in general have crudely characterized this as corporations have the exact same rights as people.",
"The ultra-simple way to look at this is this: if individual people have basic rights (eg, speech, assembly, the right to petition the govt), why shouldn't groups of people? More specifically, groups of individual people organized as non-profit companies have long enjoyed exercising basic rights. Why should groups of people organized in a for-profit structure (or a union) be denied those same basic rights when the US Constitution clearly does not make a distinction regarding who gets to exercise basic rights? This was the basic gist of Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Citizens United (from wikipedia): > The majority wrote, \"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech. Justice Kennedy's opinion also noted that because the First Amendment does not distinguish between media and other corporations, the BCRA restrictions improperly allowed Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs. People look at Burwell v Hobby Lobby as an extension of this basic concept eg, if corporations have 1A rights, why stop there? Why not the full deck of rights? (But note that Burwell v Hobby Lobby only pertains to closely held private companies, not Coca Cola or ExxonMobile). Also from wikipedia on the Hobby Lobby case: > The court found that for-profit corporations could be considered persons under the RFRA. It noted that the HHS treats nonprofit corporations as persons within the meaning of RFRA. The court stated, \"no conceivable definition of the term includes natural persons and nonprofit corporations, but not for-profit corporations.\" Responding to lower court judges' suggestion that the purpose of for-profit corporations \"is simply to make money\", the court said, \"For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives.\" And before everybody starts listing off every reason CU v FEC & Burwell v HL is bad, please note that I am just explaining the SCOTUS decision, not passing moral judgement on it."
],
"score": [
16,
6,
6,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
60wbmd | How did Islam become such a seemingly violent religion when the majority of Muslims don't condone violence? | In other words, what led Islam to be such a violent religion if it supposedly promotes peace like other religions? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"df9tfiz",
"df9yo1c",
"dfal6d9"
],
"text": [
"It's really not. It's just you don't hear a news report about every time a Muslim or a primarily Muslim country doesn't do something bad. The amount of terrorists is a drop in the bucket to the amount of Muslims. To the extent that it's \"more likely\" that violent areas have more Islam going on, it's really just conflating correlation with causation. It turns out that the west dominated a lot of those areas in ways that set back their long term growth and interfered with their economies, stability, politics, cultures, etc. through the colonial period and the cold war, with some animosity still remaining. As a result, those places tend to have less stability and more violence for that reason, not originated from the religion they have. To the extent that it does line up with religion, that's partly because long ago, political and religious boundaries were more blurred, therefore, a lot of the war and subsequent politics retain some remainder of the culture/religious alliances that date back millennia.",
"Why has it become a **seemingly violent** religion? Because militant groups are using it as their agenda. And they are on the news all the time. My brother watching twitch all day, on the other hand, isn't newsworthy at all so you never hear about him. So Islam seems violent to you. Why are militant groups using religion(Islam in this case) as their agenda? I'm not sure and the rules don't allow speculation.",
"There are a few things here: 1. Qur'an by itself has laws regarding warfare. New Testament does not have this, neither do the Buddhist Sutta, or Hindi's whateverisHindiisin'sholybook. Hindu does have God of War, but there is no law about warfare (i.e what to do with captured enemies). 2. Islam puts emphasis on individual interpretation with no centralized religious head. Qur'an by design is incredibly vague, but the lack of religious head means everyone is allowed to interpret stuff and **they cannot be wrong**. Others can disagree and kill them, but they will not be wrong, because Islam encourages individual interpretations of Qur'an's verses. 3. Islam is prevalent in Middle East. This is a highly unstable region with medieval warrior culture, which hates cowardice, praises bravery, and loves revenge to restore honor. They do the last part by killing those who dishonor them (unlike the Japanese, who just become depressed and commit suicide). 4. Finally, Islam encourages the them vs us mentality. It is literally touted as Judaism 3.0, the better version of Christianity, itself the better version of Judaism. It claims that Jews and Christians are corrupted, and they need to be converted, subjugated, or killed, in that order. If you look at Muslim terrorists, almost all of them are from Middle East or indoctrinated by Middle Eastern Islam. The result is a bunch of tribesmen swearing revenge to the West who dishonored Islam by defeating Middle East, fueled by radical imams who can rightfully call themselves right, citing verses in Qur'an that encourage them to see the kaffir (unbeliever) as nothing more than cattles to either devour or enslave Since they can't fight in normal armed conflict, they have to resort to terrorism to fuel their wet dream of Islam winning."
],
"score": [
9,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
60x8z7 | Is Vladimir Putin a nationalist? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfa0lah"
],
"text": [
"By definition: a person who advocates political independence for a country. OR a person with strong patriotic feelings, especially one who believes in the superiority of their country over others. So yes, definitely."
],
"score": [
14
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60xf4w | Differences in sign language around the world (ASL vs BSL vs etc.) | Do they share commonalities like spoken languages? Do American Sign Language and British Sign Langue look similar but have different "accents"? Would they understand each others' signs? Do the systems Asian cultures use widely differ from ASL/BSL like our spoke languages? Please add any other pertinent info you think would be interesting to know. Thanks in advance! | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfa3z6q",
"dfa3h9i",
"dfa1ya3"
],
"text": [
"British Sign and American Sign Language are actually two of the most linguistically distinct Sign languages with only 20% mutual intelligibility and entirely different manual alphabet systems which makes it extra hard to puzzle through. ASL is in the French Sign Language family, not the British sign family. Tl;dr when the first guy wanted to start a school for the Deaf in the US, the British Schools told him to fuck off so he based ASL on French Sign mashed up with local signing native to Massachusetts called Martha's Vineyard Sign. And that's why British & American sign languages are so dissimilar.",
"ASL and BSL are very different. The important thing to remember about sign language is they are not signed versions of spoken languages (though they will borrow from them in various ways), but rather unique to themselves grammatically and so on. ASL has more in common with French sign language than British, due to contact with it in the 19th century.",
"Every country has their own deaf culture that includes a very unique sign language. It can even vary school to school in the same country. I'm sure there are commonalities just based on statistics."
],
"score": [
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
60xtnz | Why are luxury retail brands referred to as 'houses'? | Understanding they are 'maisons' (houses) in french, but still unclear as to where the naming convention comes from. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfaeast"
],
"text": [
"Absent \"a market\", as in a central place that trades a lot of goods of the same type, you have to go straight to the producer to acquire the good. So you are a rich person and you need a dress made. You have an in-house seamstress who does your normal work. She repairs your clothes as they wear and makes everyday wear for family and staff. This person is \"your girl\". Now if you are a seamstress or dressmaker of high skill you may either take commissions out of your own house (highly unlikely at the time), or you may be the seamstress and/or dressmaker for a particularly famous person. So others who seek your services to design and make a dress are invited to \"the house\" of whomever owns your work. So one of sufficient means and breeding might be directed to \"Call on the House of Hubert de Givenchy\" to see if he might arrange a fitting de couture. Basically it comes from \"go to Bob's place and ask if he'll make a dress for you\", but when fancy people say that shit it becomes fancy. So \"This design comes from the house of Bob\". etc. It's all really basic beaoch stuff, redressed by history as special magic."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
60ytqg | Pro wrestling | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfaemyk",
"dfae9nj",
"dfak8l2",
"dfajh6g",
"dfajf1a",
"dfalwox",
"dfaikq1",
"dfafliq",
"dfalk3l",
"dfajg1t",
"dfahfsm",
"dfajkr0",
"dfako0m",
"dfajkhb",
"dfak2z2",
"dfafmpj",
"dfaizp1",
"dfam6sz",
"dfakex6",
"dfaebnq",
"dfalhjv",
"dfal27g",
"dfapny1"
],
"text": [
"I'm a big fan of pro-wrestling. It's easier to understand if you think of it as real-life super heroes. Pretty much everyone who is a fan knows it's scripted (trust me, we condescendingly hear it every time we mention it's an interest). The appeal of wrestling vs. 'real' fighting (MMA, UFC, Boxing, etc.,) is that it's a year-long affair. For instance, WWE has two televised weekly events and 1 monthly pay per view. This allows for long-term character developments and for there to be a battle of good vs. evil. Good vs. evil is huge in wrestling - WWE usually pits the boss against the small guy who has to 'overcome' the evil bosses continued harassment - like handicap matches, backstage attacks, new powerful signees etc., Of course, the 'promos'/interviews are all scripted. And, you have a variety of styles. Some will take on the role of a super athlete, some will be a comedy routine, some will mimic B-Roll horror movies, some act like royalty/celebrities, etc., All of that leads to Saturday Night Live-esque skits (some jokes, some serious) that fans like myself find quite entertaining. If you doubt the acting talent, just remember that The Rock started his career in wrestling and is now Hollywoods top paid actor. I'm not saying that everyone will love the Rock, but that seems to suggest that the WWE has an emphasis on getting genuinely interesting people on the microphone. Lastly, you have the wrestling itself. I like to think of it like a mix between amatuer wrestling, UFC, and gymnastics. [Here's my best attempt to convince you]( URL_3 ) that wrestling has some pretty cool stunts. In wrestling terminology, this is what's called a \"spot.\" It's one of the 'big sequences' of moves in a match. Most of the match is normally ad-libbed - but some sequences are planned out before hand, usually the riskier/more dangerous shit. If you watch wrestling 'critically', you can quite easily see/hear moves being called out between the guys in the match. Great wrestlers can make the ad-libbed part move smoothly. Bad/inexperienced ones botch it. A fan appreciates both the good and the bad and aren't exactly looking for every match to be a 5* match. It's like watching something like American Idol and expecting everyone to not suck. So watching the poorly done matches can be just as interesting as a great one. Also: plenty of these guys have martial arts/amateur wrestling experience. So while they're not actually making the holds be damaging, they're doing semi-real moves that if they put a little more pressure on *could break someones arm.* A good pro-wrestler can make it look a lot like an actual hold - it's the bad ones that you usually see in \"LOL WRESTLING!!!\" videos on youtube. EDIT: Saw a few recommendations from fellow fans that I thought that I'd add to the comment 1. [Wrestling isn't Wrestling]( URL_0 ) a well-done/humourous explanation of the development of a wrestling character. 2. [Awesome sequence by Sami Zayn & Cesaro]( URL_1 ). 3. [A quality full-length match between two of the best in the business, Shinsuke Nakamura vs. Sami Zayn]( URL_2 ). It's a more 'technical match' with nods to fighting sports. I'd argue it's more of a pro-wrestling fans wet dream than a casual fans, but since it's what a pro-wrestling fan sees as a quality match it's worth posting.",
"The biggest thing to understand is that it is not designed to simulate a real fight at all. It does not even pretend to be a real fight, it is story telling through mock combat. It's a stage show. Sometimes what is on display is just raw athleticism like in this [match]( URL_1 ). Where it is two wrestlers just putting on a show of how athletic they are. Sometimes it is the raw spectacle of the event like [this]( URL_0 ) very famous scene. And other times it is about the story. That is harder to get across unless you know the people in the match. But Wrestling has told some amazing stories in the ring. The only tick to enjoying pro wrestling is to forget is is suppose to simulate a real fight. Everything else is great.",
"Seinfeld put it best: \"Professional wrestling. The question you have to ask yourself about professional wrestling is a simple one. If professional wrestling did not exist, could you come up with this idea? Could you envision the popularity of huge men in tiny bathing suits pretending to fight? Could you sell this to a promoter? \"I'm telling you, Sid, millions of people will enjoy watching this. The guys'll be huge, we'll put them in little suits, and they won't really fight.\" Professional wrestling is the only sport where participants are just thrown right out into the audience, and no one in the crowd thinks anything unusual is happening. If you're watching a golf tournament and Jack Nicklaus goes flying over your head - first of all, I would say you're watching a very competitive tournament. And how about the professional wrestling referee? There's a great job. You're a referee in a sport with no rules of any kind. How do you screw that up? The referee is kinda like Larry of the Three Stooges. You don't really need him, but it just wouldn't be the same without him. They must get these guys from the same place the Harlem Globetrotters get their refs. There must be this whole school where they teach you to just kind of run around and not notice anything. They sit you down, show you a film of the rub-out scene from St. Valentine's Day Massacre, and if you don't see anything illegal going on, you're hired.\"",
"Absolutely everyone should watch this video, fans or newcomers. My boyfriend made me watch it after I teased him for his love for pro wrestling. Now we sit down and watch events together all the time URL_0",
"Maybe I missed it, but if not I'm surprised no has mentioned that [wrestling isn't wrestling ]( URL_0 )",
"100 or so years ago, pro wrestling was real sport, but beginning to become fixed. Now originally, that just meant more and more fixed fights, to avoid boring lengthy draws that were all too common and which the crowd didn't like (to explain: at that point pro wrestling, at least in the USA, had close ties to carnival wrestling and the associated chicanery). Once it became sufficiently fixed, however, since the wrestlers were often \"in the know\", outlandish things could be introduced to further titillate the crowd, for example, a wrestler who would jump off the ropes and land on his opponent. No one would have seen it done before, because it wouldn't have worked in a real match. So how would the crowd know it wouldn't work \"for real\" if they'd never seen it tried? They wouldn't, and were thus amazed at the display of athleticism and gymnastics and how it devastated the opponent. The people in charge of the show didn't care about authenticity, they wanted to sell tickets! The pro wrestling you see today in the WWE is the culmination of 100-odd years of steadily less and less realistic wrestling (with the purpose of selling tickets), which has got to the point that it makes no claim whatsoever to be, or attempt to resemble, legitimate competition, and nor does its viewer base desire it to. Since it was so gradual, instead of a mass exodus in disgust, the wrestling savvy fans who wanted to see something real, or at least resembling real sport, were by degrees slowly replaced by people who cared less and less about sporting competition or the art of wrestling, and more and more about excitement and drama. It's now got its own enclave, its own place in our culture, somewhere between sport and theatre, but is still constantly evolving, so who knows what it might look like in another century! I hope that helped.",
"Think of it as a sports soap opera. The stories are contrived and the action is over the top, but put together it can be damn entertaining.",
"Pro Wrestling is Soap Opera for guys who don't want to look weak in front of their bros. It's a scripted series of conflicts of business or romance that gets settled by manly men doing manly combative things. The actors have to be able to act, and fight, and act like they are fighting; or be a manager, or friend, or wife, or husband, or plaything, or whatever, who can act wounded. And in between the plot points you are urged to buy things more manly than soap. But the plots are the same as any daytime television show. Infidelity. Dishonest Business Practices. Shifting Allegiance. Raw Dislike. Exploitation. Protection of the Weak. etc. etc. etc.",
"This guy (John Landis' son)does a great job of explaining wrestling. UpToMyKnees-Wrestling isn't Wrestling URL_0 The video is pretty funny too.",
"Not sure if this helps but I feel obligated to post [Wrestling isn't Wrestling]( URL_0 ).",
"Two big, strong guys who are working very hard not to hurt each other put on a show that looks, when done well, like they're fighting each other. While the spectacle appears to be about a competition showcasing athletic ability, it's really a drama told with physicality, designed to take the spectator on a journey of highs and lows and ultimately catharsis. Started out ELI5 and somehow crept up to grade 12 drama level.",
"[This may be one of the best examples.]( URL_0 ) It used to be about maintaining that it was all real fights, but that has long since passed. For the better actually, with no intent on making any of the fights seem real, insane stuff like this can happen. [And this too.]( URL_1 ) It is all about stories, ridiculous live stunts, and silliness.",
"Um, why are the comments not filled with mankind being thrown off hell in a cell references...",
"It's essentially theater. Just as we know a movie is staged and acted, we can still enjoy it.",
"The majority of pro-wrestling fans as adults were fans as kids. The wrestlers were super heroes to us as kids. The action seemed real. Good vs. Evil. The storylines and all of that had our undivided attention. Once you get older you don't fall for the dumb stuff anymore, but instead the interest lies in some different aspects. I would say that most people just enjoy it as an escape from real life. You can live vicariously through the characters, as you can see them beat up their a**hole boss, say whatever they feel like on the mic, talk smack, go for the gold and achieve their dreams. Some go for the technical aspect, as some wrestlers are truly gifted in the ring. Really it's a mix of a lot of things. Athleticism, mic skills, technical wrestling, ring psychology (ability to tell a story and pace a match accordingly). It's awesome stuff man. You just need to have the right person introduce it to you correctly or go to a live event or see a few good matches to start you off right. Let me know if you need suggestions. I love introducing new people to wrestling! Maybe start with Randy \"Macho Man\" Savage vs Ricky \"The Dragon\" Steamboat for the Intercontinental Championship @ Wrestlemania III. Or maybe try watching a wrestling documentary, like CM Punk's or Mick Foley's.",
"Thanks for asking this question! I'm American, but I've never really understood it either....",
"One thing often forgotten is that pro wrestling got starts in carnivals, so its basis is in vaudeville, which today has morphed into the modern variety/late tight talk shows. While pro wrestling stays truer to its roots; whether its feats of strength or athleticism, spectacular and death defying stunts stunts, improve, burlesque, slapstick and sometimes just a plain freak show.",
"It would help if you gave us an idea of a match you thought looked pathetic. Like any medium, there's quality issues and with WWE in particular lately, they've been focused on very fast, punchy matches with sudden finishes. There's also different approaches to wrestling. There's the compact approach WWE takes where everything is clear for the viewers, then there's Japanese pro wrestling which is more about slow starts building to huge finishes with lots of \"wrestling psychology\" (i.e. applying a degree of real life combat tech like targeting limbs or psyching out your opponent to the fictional narrative of pro wrestling). Look up some New Japan Pro matches on Dailymotion for a starter pack. And in case anyone hasn't mentioned it, join us at /r/SquaredCircle where you might get an even more through answer.",
"Take a movie. Make it live action, in front of you. General script but a lot of improvisation. Add some soap-opera worthy drama and bigger than life characters. That's about it.",
"its just entertainment, similar to going to the movies or attending a play. they create storylines to follow and create tons of drama between the wrestlers and people enjoy watching it. u arent missing anything, i think its lame too but there are plenty of people out there who enjoy it. also they have scantily clothed attractive women \"wrestlers\" so that helps alot with male viewership",
"[If you have 4 minutes, here's Max Landis explaining it perfectly] ( URL_0 )",
"They're soap operas for men. I say that without judgement, it can be a blast to watch. But that's what they are, soaps for men.",
"I'll put it as simply I can. Kids like it because it's a live action video game/comic book/superhero movie. Adults like it because they grew up watching it for the most part, and for the aforementioned reasons and more. Hardcore fans of wrestling take it very seriously, like hardcore fans of any form of entertainment, be it music or movies or comedy. Look at a show like Saturday Night Live as a corollary. Many of the biggest stars of all time became famous from being on that show. But unless you're dug way deep in on the underground improv comedy circuit the first time you heard of or saw those people were when they were cast on SNL. With pro wrestling it's the same, except those who endeavor themselves to dig deeper will have heard of the vast majority of the performers before they make it to mainstream WWE television. There are hundreds of small wrestling promotions around the world where wrestlers ply their trade and try to get discovered. The most hardcore of the fans follow all of these small companies and track the careers of their favorites over the years. Like the cast members on SNL that people enjoy, when they break out and go on to bigger and better things there's a sense of pride involved in the feeling that you were in on the ground floor with a performer. The same applies to music or stand up comedy as well obviously (i.e. I watched Justin Bieber on YouTube before he signed a record deal, or I saw Bob Saget do stand up before he was on Full House). That feeling builds a strong equity between an audience and the performer and the medium they perform in. Me personally, I followed a wrestler named Bryan Danielson (aka Daniel Bryan) literally since his first couple of matches, I saw him hundreds of times live in front of dozens to a few hundred people. And then after over a decade on the smaller circuit and overseas wrestling scene, he got signed by WWE and became a huge star, and years later I got to see him live in the main event winning the championship in front of 70,000 people. This was the culmination of a 15 year journey of following the career of a singular performer. This is the equivalent of seeing someone's first improv show and following their career and being there for them winning an Oscar. It was an incredible feeling watching it play out and the joy I felt was not unlike watching a close friend achieve a lifelong dream. There's also the aspect of following the backstage news and gossip that delve into the business and personal aspects of the companies and performers. There's tons of insider newsletters and websites and podcasts that allow you to peek behind the curtain, not unlike a director's commentary on a DVD or reading Variety for Hollywood business news. This is another element that connects the audience to the performers and the business in general. As far as the wrestling itself, you get out of it what you put into it. There's a thousand different flavors of it. Not everything is like WWE, with cartoony storylines and soap opera drama and bad comedy. There's more athletic based sports-type wrestling, there's some that's even more outrageous than WWE, all kinds of varieties. Not everyone can wrap their head around why anyone would watch fake fights, and that's fine. But it's serial storytelling, live performance, improv, comedy, stunt show, and sports competition all rolled into one. Is it fake? Sure. Is some of it, especially the mainstream version, embarrassingly bad to watch? Absolutely. But like I said, there's something for everyone out there in some form with pro wrestling. Although honestly I liken pro wrestling to smoking cigarettes. You either start when you're young or you never pick up the habit. I don't think I know many adults that got super into wrestling past the age of 16 or so. But if you're open to it, and take the time explore the wide variety that is out there all over the world, it's a very rich experience and a profoundly enjoyable hobby to take up."
],
"score": [
1175,
274,
197,
181,
81,
45,
44,
34,
31,
19,
17,
12,
10,
9,
9,
8,
7,
6,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYvMOf3hsGA",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmMRBnU-Vac&feature=youtu.be&t=1m49s",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgSzYxmQDqA",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh22y0T-2O0"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hMp65SzyTU#t=01m20s",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVV9mNc7AGg#t=04m24s"
],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYvMOf3hsGA"
],
[
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nbq86V6x5LM"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VYvMOf3hsGA"
],
[
"https://youtu.be/VYvMOf3hsGA"
],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acjPWVvSy2g",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8KbXThVBFI"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSe1maLmLUI"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60z2dg | when you say something is 'pound-for-pound' the best. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfag994"
],
"text": [
"It's to compare two things and take into consideration factors such as cost, or size, or something else, in addition to just raw power/performance/quality. For example, a human is objectively stronger than an ant. Any human can lift a heavier weight than any ant. But pound for pound, if you consider the weight of the ant compared to what it can lift, the ant could be said to be stronger. It doesn't have to be literally about weight. You could use it as an analogy, for example comparing two electronic devices and letting the price of the devices being the \"pound\" part of it. A 800 dollar phone is going to be objectively better than a 200 dollar phone, but if the 800 dollar phone is only twice as powerful as the 200 dollar phone, you could say that pound for pound, the 200 dollar phone offers more."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60zb1k | The history/meaning behind the saying "Break a Leg" said for good luck. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfajspd",
"dfaiagw",
"dfaruom"
],
"text": [
"pretty sure all the previous answers are wrong. While there are beliefs around luck and Macbeth. The mechanism you use to open and close the curtains is called a leg. So if you have to do so many performances, and constantly open and close the curtain you would \"break the leg\". As in you used it so much it wore down and broke. So saying break a leg means you hope the play os so good they add performances and their curtain mechanism break from ober use.",
"In theater, it's sort of a custom or common belief that if you wish someone good luck, you're actually sort of jinxing it. Like, now that they said it, they'll have more nerves and feel more pressure into performing greatly! A lot of people think this way, and it's sort of evolved as a joke or a superstition, not to be taken too seriously. So, instead of wishing people good luck, they tell others to \"break a leg,\" essentially doing the opposite. It's also slightly relieving in that you're presenting them with a worst-case scenario that most likely won't happen.",
"Anyone who confidently gives you the answer to this question is, I'm afraid, almost certainly mistaken. That's because there are lots and lots of theories about it, and none of them have any good evidence. The usual explanation is that traditionally, theatrical types were a superstitious bunch. Since the Fates (or whichever supernatural beings were involved) were always conspiring to make things go wrong, actors would try to trick them by wishing bad luck: the Fates would, in their contrary nature, then do the opposite -- it was, if you like, a form of reverse psychology. But there's simply no evidence to show that this is the correct explanation. Other theories include: * \"break a leg\" is slang for \"bow\" or \"curtsey\", so you're wishing lots of curtain calls; * a Shakespearean actor who was so wrapped up in the play and giving such a fantastic performance that even he didn't notice he'd fractured his own leg; * the Yiddish phrase \"hatsloche un broche\" means \"success and blessing\", but Germans misheard it as \"Hals- und Beinbruch\" which means \"break your neck, break a leg\" -- Germans still use that phrase today. There are many more. All we know for sure is that the first written records of this phrase being used date from the early 1920s."
],
"score": [
14,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
60zep2 | how much of romanticised pirate stereotypes actually have basis in reality? | Obviously pirates are historical figures associated with roguish stereotypes and outlandish legends. But how much of the myth surrounding them, such as sayings like "shiver me timbers", the concept of ship-to-ship sword/gun battles and the whole "pirate look" e.g. tricorne hat and parrot on shoulder, actually stem from real life people and events? Essentially were they all just murdery asshats? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfam6it",
"dfaqu26",
"dfak4g8"
],
"text": [
"Pirates have been romanticized, like the cowboy or the ninja. A lot of this came from the older days of cinema where it was more entertaining to have a suave rogue, a tough as nails hard working American rancher or a quiet assassin with seemingly magical power as opposed to a bunch of unwashed sailors with scurvy robbing people who cant fight back, a guy who spends 99% of his day on horseback trying to move cows from point a to point b and generic spies and saboteurs who mostly made high ranking officials paranoid, stole stuff and rarely killed anyone.",
"For the \"shiver me timbers\" bit, that does actually have a basis in real nautical slang used at the time, not only by pirates mind you. It comes from the fact that when sailing on the high seas, the rocking of the waves would lift up the ship and subsequently send it coming down, which would cause the timbers (wooden support beams) to creak, startling the sailors. The expression was thus used to express surprise, as you might imagine. As for the rest of stereotypical pirate speech, it was modeled on the accents in south west England, known collectively as west country. This has some basis in reality, since a lot of sailors would've come from there (Blackbeard himself was from Bristol in fact), and since pirates were primarily sailors down on their luck, a fair share of pirates would therefore come from that area. I think the main reason it is seen as \"the\" pirate accent though, is the fact that Robert Newton used it in his performance as Long John Silver in the Treasure Island film. The trope of peg-legs and parrots on the shoulder also stems from that movie.",
"> Essentially were they all just murdery asshats? With a few exceptions. There wasn't much in the way of swashbuckling, more like seaborne muggings. Find a target that isn't going to put up a fight, steal their shit, maybe kill everybody. There was (and still is in a lot of places) a ton of low-grade piracy. Less Blackbeard, and more local fisherman doing a little hijacking and thieving to supplement their income. There were also \"acceptable\" forms of piracy like privateering, or the less official just generally limiting your dickery to people your government wasn't in the mood to defend."
],
"score": [
9,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
610b52 | Why are pianists celebrated for performing other people's work (Beethoven, etc) but musicians who "cover" other artists are sort of looked down on? | I'm pretty much asking why all rich/famous pianists make a living performing other people's music instead of creating their own like musicians do. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfaq704",
"dfaqall"
],
"text": [
"Because the \"classical\" music hasn't been recorded, it's written on paper, so it's up to each pianist or orchestra to decide how THEY think it SHOULD sound. New music HAS been recorded, so aside from learning it and listening, there's not as much skill involved. Not saying it's not skillful to be a cover artist, just sometimes it's easier than writing your own.",
"A musician, a composer and a pop-artist are different things. The musicians in an orchestra perform things written by certain composers. They are praised for gifting us something we can't do for ourselves and that we enjoy. They can play it boring and they will be booed, they can play it soulful and will be celebrated. A composer writes music *for them*. Some are dead, like Beethoven, some are alive like Philip Glass. Their music has reached us because of its inherent value. And the performers (pianists, for example) don't just hit the keys one after another. They will not reach success by doing that. They have to interpret the score and play it, not just read it. Not everyone can do that. A pop-artist, either playing their own music or doing covers is usually a lower step on the scale. It's not frowned upon because it's a cover, it has less \"value\" because it's pop-music. It's music that is written for amusement right now and for the most part won't stand the test of time. Many pop artists don't even write their own songs, just sing them (and get praise for them, of course, as good performers). As for covers, if you try to sing \"smell like teen spirit\" and don't honour it properly, I will personally find you and kill you. It's not a question of past vs. present. Nor snob musicians. It's a question of worth. There was a great deal of light-musicians at the time of Mozart, that kept people entertained, but their music hasn't reached us because it was not good enough."
],
"score": [
26,
10
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6113hn | Why do we put milk in cereal? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfaw05i",
"dfb4yug"
],
"text": [
"milk, due to its fat content, coats the cereal and keeps it from getting soggy as quickly as it does in pure water. It also provides a balanced breakfast- carbs and dairy/ a source of calcium. This should help : URL_0",
"Carbs + fat is a pretty solid combination for a meal, and you can find it all over the world. Rice + chicken. Beef + potatoes. Shrimp + grits. We naturally crave, and enjoy, combinations that satisfy our basic dietary needs, and carbs + fat is a VERY basic, VERY important one."
],
"score": [
22,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35tqle/eli5_why_do_we_put_milk_in_our_cereal_how_did/"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6115zy | Why the Speaker in the U.K. House of Commons isn't the Acting Monarch/other Royalty? | Just watching the House discuss/debate and I understand what job the Speaker has and does but as it is Her/His Majesty's government, why isn't the Acting Monarch or any of her/his heirs, such as any Princes, job to preside over these meetings? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfax200",
"dfavdv4",
"dfayweh"
],
"text": [
"Maybe not the answer you're looking for, but the monarch isn't actually allowed into the house of commons anyway. It's been this way since king Charles I stormed into parliament to arrest some ministers in the 1600s, leading to the civil war.",
"The origins of this role are that it was the Speaker who would communicate any opinions from the House of Commons to the Monarch. The Monarch had better things to do than to sit in the House, but needed to be kept informed of what was going on, and so the MPs would elect one of their own, an MP, to pass information on to the monarch - and that MP was the Speaker. Nowadays, the Speaker's role has evolved quite a bit, but the general idea is the same. The monarch does not sit in the House of Commons. Partly this is for practical reasons - she has engagements all over the world, and would not be free to attend the Commons regularly. But also it's vital to ensure that the House of Commons can act independently of the monarch - it could hardly be considered independent of the monarch if the monarch herself sat in every session to oversee it.",
"The House of Commons, and the House of Lords too, wanted to emphasise that they act independently of the Queen (or King), in particular after the English Civil War. There's a lot in ceremony of the \"State Opening of Parliament\" which marks the beginning of a (usually year-long) session of Parliament that relates to this. The monarch takes a 'hostage' from Parliament. 'Black rod' goes to summon the Commons to the Lords chamber and the door is slammed in his face. After the Queen's speech which outlines the legislative agenda for the coming year, the Commons and Lords both symbolically discuss a totally unrelated law."
],
"score": [
11,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
611z7m | How will banning Muslims stop terror attacks, but banning guns won't stop shootings? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfb1fie",
"dfb3yyf"
],
"text": [
"Short: It won't. Long: There's literally always going to be a schism between have and have nots. Based on physical wealth, some sort of ascribed status, religious something or other, or stars printed on your belly. Doesn't fucking matter. It's just skub. And people are always going to fight over it. And one side is always going to have a more organized fighting force. So the other is gonna blow shit up all sneaky like. Until we figure it out or die. Whichever comes first. Banning guns is just handing your stats the monopoly on violence.",
"Banning guns *will* stop shootings - if you can actually ban them de facto rather than merely de jure. However, there are two problems. The first is that you cannot effectively ban guns any more than you can effectively ban heroin use or prostitution. You can pass laws against them, but that's no guarantee of stopping them unless the penalties are so draconian that you effectively cull the population of anyone tempting to break those laws. The second is that we don't particularly care about shootings - we care about *murders*. Banning guns can potentially make it more difficult to commit murders, but you rapidly get into a scenario where you have to ban almost anything that can be used as a weapon. Consider the London attack where the weapons were cars and knives. In terms of banning Muslims, consider how we deal with criminals. If you're a violent criminal, we separate you from society so you cannot harm people. With domestic criminals, we use a rather inefficient reactive process - we wait until someone has committed a crime to separate them - because we're more concerned with ensuring that people are not unjustly incarcerated than we are that people are perfectly protected. With foreigners, we classify people based on nationality. We treat Guatemalans like job seekers, Japanese people like tourists and North Koreans with extreme skepticism based solely on their nationality. Unlike with domestic criminals, we don't really have the information, time or inclination to treat each individual differently but often adopt broad measures that treat people of the same nationality the same."
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
613i4d | why the U.S government feels the need to spy on all U.S citizens? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfbewyv",
"dfbg76y"
],
"text": [
"1. They don't, unless you do something that warrants being monitored they don't give a shit. 2. Any data they do collect tends to be from media services you already gave permission to give away data to when you agreed to the terms of service. 3. They aren't watching you wack off or other menial shit, you're not worth their time. If they do monitor you it's after you did some shady shit that they already have a lot of proof already that you're involved in.",
"Some spy agencies like the NSA have decided that if they collect information on everyone, and then run it through special algorithms, they might be able to find potential terrorists. It's the old needle in the haystack idea. In the old days it would have been impossible. But now with super computers, it can be done rather quickly. Studies have shown that very few people who could be terrorists have been found this way, but they keep trying."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6143kg | Why are people so concerned about terrorists, when things like drunk driving kill more people everyday? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfbjvwj",
"dfbnjft",
"dfbm8as",
"dfbo4gz"
],
"text": [
"People are concerned about easy-to-visualize scenarios. Statistically, the more elaborate the scenario, the less likely it is. Dying in a car crash is more likely than dying in a car crash on first days of winter due to tires slipping and you accidentally ending up on the wrong lane and crashing onto someone. But our monkey brains treat latter scenario as more likely precisely because it's easier to imagine. Similarly, there are billions of different ways to die, but terrorists doing elaborate attack on you specifically is going to be way more visual, way more easy to imagine, and thus our brains will end up treating it as more likely as well. Also, news produce sorta twisted view about this. Because someone dying in their own bathroom because they slipped or whatever is probably not gonna make it into news, you probably can't recall a single time that anyone had died in their bathroom. Major catastrophes, though rare, are discussed around the world on the other hand, so you probably can name terrorist attacks, airplane crashes, dams failing or nuclear reactor catastrophes, and because of this availability, you view those events being more likely than someone dying in their bathroom. But there's also pretty solid reason for being concerned about terrorism. While you could kinda ignore it as \"some people die to terrorism\", it's not really fair since terrorist attacks could be targeted to people speaking for or against something. This is sorta how terrorism could be used to advance political goals and what people fear Islamic terrorism might become. That would create climate where anyone speaking against interests of terrorist organization would risk dying, and when they die, people would feel that \"they were asking for it\". That would be really dangerous for us all in a way drunk driving simply can't match.",
"People are afraid of things that they feel they cannot control, and they overestimate their ability to control certain situations. For example, [most people think they are superior drivers]( URL_0 ) when statistically and logically this is not true. So they underestimate the dangers of driving because of how awesome they imagine they are at it, and overestimate the dangers of things they cannot control - flying, terrorism, street crime, etc. There's also the effects of news coverage, which naturally focuses on uncommon situations like terrorism rather than sadly routine dangers like domestic violence, heart disease, and your own example of drunk driving.",
"Because the news says so. If the news spent 24 hours a day showing the graphic details of every car accident in America, people would be much more up in arms about drunk driving. The news shows us very little of the world's daily events, but act as if the event they're showing is the only major news that is currently happening. I place more merit in the absence of certain news rather than what they show. More often than not, what is presented is done so to promote viewership, and subsequently, revenue for advertisers.",
"Because we talk about it ALL THE TIME. Ever since 9/11 we have talked about it.16 years is a long time it's all over our daily life. It's a normal thing to be worried about. We talk about it way more often than slipping in the shower. The TSA makes us think about it when we fly. There are still concerns about organizations like ISIS on our TVs nightly. Around the world we still see reports of organized terrorism of radical muslims here and there. Our family military members are still going to the Middle East. It's pumped up further by geopolitical gobeldygook like if it were up to some percentage of people Sharia law would be real. GASP! We blow this up bigger than it is because that's how our media treats these sort of global conflicts. Ever since the Communist threat was televised, we have grippingly held to the story. Be it exaggerated or twisted for ratings, or not. We live in a time of fear. Just like when communist pigs wanted to take over the world, we worry now the Muslim radicals are trying to blow it up. It just doesn't matter you could die in a car crash when your neighbors are all talking about the bombing last week in London."
],
"score": [
26,
5,
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/motr/when-it-comes-to-driving-most-people-think-their-skills-are-above-average.html#.WNQ3waK1uUk"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6145of | How come new inventions and words are different in other languages? | You would think that if something new was created then you would just call it what the creator calls it. But, in Japan they call a phone a "denwa". What is the reason for new devices to still be called different things in other languages? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfbknx8"
],
"text": [
"Usually they new word *actually means something* in the other language. To use your example: 電 (den, “electric”) + 話 (wa, “conversation”). So \"electric conversation\" is actually a pretty good name for this in Japanese."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
614n1a | Why are the vast majority of popular comic books about superheroes? | As far as I can tell, no other medium of storytelling is so dominated by one genre. What caused comic books and superhero stories to become so closely linked? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfbogus"
],
"text": [
"There used to be a lot of different types of comic books--mystery, horror, action, and so on. Batman's flagship book, Detective Comics, was originally about more detectives than just Batman. Likewise with Action Comics and Superman. Then in the 1950s a guy wrote this book called *The Seduction of the Innocent* that basically said that comic books were evil and were corrupting the youth. A moral outrage ensued across the country. Comic book companies responding by creating the Comics Code Authority, so they could be seen as self-regulating. The CCA had a bunch of rules about what could and couldn't be in a comic book, and the style of superhero comics lent themselves to fitting into these rules. The big comic companies (DC and Marvel) stuck to the rules, and wound up only selling superhero comics. Everyone else went out of business. Eventually, people began lightening up on this sort of thing, because comics were no longer this new, scary thing, particularly in the 1980s and 90s. Then the code was abandoned altogether in the 2000s. Thus, because of the long restriction, superhero comics still dominate the industry. Other types of comics have come back, but the flagship titles for all the major companies are superhero books. Edit: what /u/imthepgh3 said is also part of the puzzle. Once the moral guardians had something else to rage against--TV, D & D, and especially video games--it became easier to expand the kinds of comics you could sell. At the same time, comics have had to compete with those other mediums as well. One response has been to open up online distribution, with things like Comixology."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
614yeg | What does today's vote to repeal the FCC's ISP privacy rules mean for the average consumer? | What every day impact or changes will we see? How will my life change, as the average consumer? I'm already receiving targeted ads on Facebook, etc. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfc69i0"
],
"text": [
"It doesn't really. The data is already out there, for real folks, for all but the most privacy-minded users. This allows the ISPs to collect data about you and then sell access to you (in an anonimized way, as part of a large bucket of similar people) to advertisers. For example let's say I sell cars, I want to find someone in the market for a car. Facebook already knows this (if you've been to any car site with a Facebook like button on it for example), Google already knows this (if you've searched for cars on Google, used a chrome browser to search for car sites, received an email about cars to your Gmail account, or carried your Android phone to a car dealer). Note there are even more ways they know these things than irlve listed above. Google and Facebook make money because they can charge advertisers more if the ad will be delivered to people shopping for a car (those customers are more likely to buy, therefore the advertisers will pay more). ISPs can basically group together and sell similar data about you. By the way there are already companies out there with massive digital profiles about you which advertisers can buy access to in order to target certain audiences (acxiom). This ISP data isn't really different, and you can still opt out of it."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6157i8 | Who is the IRA, and whats their deal? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfbv238",
"dfbsiw6",
"dfc1aoq"
],
"text": [
"Ireland, all of it, used to be part of the UK. Which was *really* not very popular with most Irish people. The original IRA was the rebel army who fought again Britain for Irish independence from the UK. This was in the 1920s. The result if that war was most of Ireland leaving the UK, but 6 counties stayed, becoming Northern Ireland. Most people in Northern Ireland wanted to be part of the UK, but there was a significant minority who considered this to be a foreign occupation. These people were mostly Catholics, and they suffered discrimination from the mostly Protestant authorities. Some of them organised as the Provisional IRA. They considered themselves the successor to the original IRA. They used terrorist tactics to attempt to 'liberate' Northern Ireland from the British. This included terror attacks in Great Britain itself. But there was a peace agreement in the late 90s. The PIRA disbanded and it's former members have mostly embraced a peaceful political process. Since then there had been several splinter groups claiming to be the \"true\" successor to the IRA, but for the most part Northern Ireland had been much more peaceful than it used to be.",
"They were a group of freedom fighters/terrorists who fought for independence from Great Britain during the Irish rebellions, they are now disbanded and the people who took over their name are just a bunch of terrorists who kill and murder anything they like.",
"The IRA do the important work of reminding Christians that everything they say about Muslims is true of themselves as well."
],
"score": [
12,
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
615kv6 | is there any evidence at all of life after death? | I know it's pseudoscience at best, but is there any consensus even among people who believe in it? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfbvu0b",
"dfc1vkj",
"dfc6fus"
],
"text": [
"If you're restricting yourself to scientific evidence, then no. If you're open to non-scientific evidence, then yes.",
"Someone once pointed out that few people speculate about \"where\" we were before we were born. I don't believe in an afterlife at all, in any form, but reincarnation seems more plausible to me. There is an fascinating documentary I saw once about the search for a new lama after one died in Tibet called [Unmistaken Child]( URL_0 ). My favorite theory of the afterlife is by Timothy Leary, the LSD activist, who said that the afterlife is like a dream. Time in a dream is distorted and it could feel as if it went on forever as we slipped away. Meaning, I guess, that if someone dies suddenly they won't experience this, and, otherwise, it would be of our own creation. I also love the quote, \"I will not die, it's the world that will end.\" When death happens, we will no longer be there. By definition, all that we will experience is life.",
"No, there's no evidence. This is why faith is such a big part of most religions. There would be no need for faith if there was proof."
],
"score": [
11,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmistaken_Child"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
615sog | What's the difference between a Priest, a Father, a Reverend, and a Pastor? | I think I know that a priest is just a general term for a holy person, but I have no clue what the others are and how they differ. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfc1nor"
],
"text": [
"Within Christianity: **A pastor** is usually any ordained person in a leadership position in a local congregation. So, for example, the person administering sacraments and delivering sermons in your local United Church of Christ church is probably a pastor. **A priest** is an ordained person in the Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican churches. Usually, they are in leadership positions in local congregations. So, pretty much all priests are pastors, but not all pastors are priests. **'Father'** is a common form of address for priests in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches. So, for example, Father John might be the priest at your local Catholic church. **'Reverend'** is a common form of address for ordained people regardless of their position (whether pastors, priests, bishops, etc.). So, for example, The Reverend Smith might be the pastor at your local Presbyterian church. Outside of Christianity, these terms are used differently. Other religions tend not to have pastors (it's a Christian term, just like 'rabbi' is a Jewish term and 'imam' is a Muslim term). Similarly, they rarely use 'reverend' (though some rabbis and some Buddhist religious leaders will us the term). Some religions have priests who are the only people who can administer certain sacraments."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
616ojv | What do movie directors actually do that makes them garners them more recognition than other crew? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfc5qup",
"dfctuxk",
"dfc66t1"
],
"text": [
"Think of the Director of a movie as a super hands on, micro manger CEO of a company, and in this situation, the company is a movie. They are in charge of everything. They work on everything, they have a say on everything, nothing gets past them, they are in charge. They reap the benefits of being in charge of a great movie, and are saddled with the burdens of a failure. All signs point to the guy (or gal) in charge.",
"The director makes nearly all of the creative decisions. The crew just executes those decisions. If you took two different directors and each gave them the same script and the same crew, you would still get two very different movies. However if you took that same script and gave it to one director and told that director to make the exact same movie twice, each time with a different crew, you'd get an almost identical movie. Don't get me wrong I think movie crews deserve a lot of credit. They do very good work, but the director has creative input and that's why they get more recognition especially for well received movies.",
"Many film directors get involved with script writing and various or even *all* aspects of pre-production. Many directors get involved with editing and other post-production. All of this at varying levels of authority, from advisor to absolute (Hitchcock, for example, for most of his movies). But to take directing at its bare minimum involvement during actual shooting, the director *at least* signs off on the lighting and camera placement and planned camera movement for each shot. He coaches and gives instructions to the actors. He decides whether re-takes are needed of a specific shot and makes adjustments, decides (more in the old days) which takes of a shot will be printed or essentially discarded and not even become available during editing. Except for the continuity (\"script girl\" in the old days) the director is the only guiding force behind every shot. The writer, producer, production designer *may* be present for some or even all of the shooting but even at a minimal involvement the director's impact on the final film is almost impossible to not see, if he has any personality and style at all. If he happens to be an artist, his impact is unmistakable."
],
"score": [
9,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6173sn | Why do certain European customs switch the comma and decimal in numbers, but not in the written language? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfccg7r",
"dfcagwj",
"dfccgo8"
],
"text": [
"It's because different countries in Europe use different standards for writing numbers. In Germany you use a comma for the decimal, while in Britain you use the period for the decimal. The international norm allows the using of both, but encourages the usage of a comma. This comma and periods have nothing to do with the comma and periods in the written languages, where they indicate a pause in and the end of the sentence. It's just how they're used to indicate the decimal in their numbers.",
"The decimal point doesn't really have any connection to the period or full-stop that comes at the end of a sentence. There's no real reason why the two should or should not be switched. Both the comma and the full-stop are just indicators of pauses in speech, the comma shorter than the full-stop. But in numbers its just a visual indicator not really a reflection of pause.",
"Generally each country has its own convention. In UK we use the full stop, around Western Europe you see commas to denote decimel numbers. Since it really doesn't matter it's just down to what becomes standard within the country you're in. Why does 1'000'000 in the West become 10'0000 under Eastern counting systems? Wow I'm rambling, that was just a terrible analogy Edit: they deal in ten thousands rather than thousands"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
617ctf | Why is it that the more frequent someone reminds us or ask us to do something, the less inclined we want to do it? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfcdyhn"
],
"text": [
"By doing it, you are sending a message that they are allowed to tell you what to do. This reduces your status from equal to submissive in the relationship."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6186x4 | Why is Russia so interested in the Crimean Peninsula? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfcn1up",
"dfch9qe",
"dfcmwkg",
"dfcid50",
"dfct518",
"dfcfq6b"
],
"text": [
"Several reasons: The territory used to be part of Russia and was only transferred to Ukraine on the whim of a former Soviet dictator, without any democratic vote, so Russians were rather upset about it at the time. Most of the population speak Russian. A slim majority of the population identifies as Russian. The wages, benefits, and pensions in Russia are higher than in Ukraine, so many citizens would be better off under Russian rule; in other words there is a financial incentive for the population to suddenly be in Russia. A major Russian naval base was permitted to operate in Crimea with permission from the Ukraine government, but since Ukraine was turning towards the EU (and maybe even NATO membership), the long term viability of the base was in doubt. The local democratically elected government of the province of Crimea was pro-Russia, and decided to take advantage of the latest Ukrainian political crisis to defect from Ukraine, and then asked to join Russia. Russia claimed to believe that Russian speakers in Crimea would be at risk of violence because of the escalating political conflict. Putin and his political party will look good/tough for getting back some lost territory. There are probably other reasons.",
"Because it's their \"window\" into the Mediterranean. The Russian naval base in Sivastopol means they can project power into the Mediterranean and beyond. Without having control of Crimea their only \"window\" westwards is far north up in Arkhangelsk which is a much worse strategic position.",
"A lot of people are putting in bits and pieces of very true information. I learned a lot of this stuff back in 2014 with the annexation. I will try to combine the information here in an UNbiased manner. First off, Ukraine was part of the soviet union during the iron curtain, and then was created as a separate country after the fall of the curtain. This created many issues. First off, about 20% of those in Ukraine [consider themselves to be Russian]( URL_1 ). Second off, Sevastopol was the site for [Russia's Black Fleet]( URL_0 ). Russia had even declared this city as a Russian Federal City, much to the dismay of the United Nations. After the fall of the curtain, Russia was allowed to keep their fleet in there, which lead to a very strong tie to the Russian government. The people considered themselves Russian, and the Russian government saw a political, geographic, and militaristic advantage to re-taking/re-claiming/invading/sequestering the peninsula and \"their\" city. This is just a small smattering of the controversy of this region. TL;DR: It benefits them and a sizable minority of the local population want it to happen.",
"Historically the Crimea was a part of Russia not the Ukraine (and before that it was a muslim Turkish-vassal state, the [Crimean Khanate]( URL_2 )). [Stalin transferred the Crimea to the Ukraine in 1954]( URL_0 ). So when the USSR broke up it was natural for Russia to want the Crimea back. However, the immediate reason was entirely down to Russian internal politics: it suited Putin to engineer a coup in order to boost his personal prestige. [Much the same as his laughable pictures naked wrestling wildlife and what not]( URL_1 ). No seriously this is a man who leads a nuclear country with a GDP the same size as Italy's!",
"To make things very blunt almost the entirety of Russias foreign policy moves can be summed up in three words. Warm. Water. Ports. Now why Crimea specifically? Well Russia already holds one side of the straight of Kerch. Holding Crimea would give them the other, and thus complete control of the Azov sea, which borders a significant portion of Ukraine.",
"They have a major naval base there. If Ukraine joined the EU as was looking likely they might have major issues accessing it. Edit: I think its a naval base anyway, they certainly have had bases there previously. It's a historical place where empires have clashed over hundreds of years, the Crimean war including the charge of the light Brigade and Florence Nightingale's invention of pie charts and medical practice in war came last time."
],
"score": [
50,
21,
9,
6,
5,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevastopol",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Ukraine"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea",
"http://theweek.com/articles/468096/8-ridiculous-vladimir-putin-publicity-stunts",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Khanate"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
618hmz | What is M-103 and Sharia Law all about? How are they connected and why are so many people against it? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfchtrc",
"dfcklmx"
],
"text": [
"M103 basically condemns islamaphobia, however no clear definition of islamaphobia is given thus you could say something like \"I don't think Allah exists\" and it would be considered islamaphobia. The fact that it's for Islam alone and it is essentially an assault of free speech means it's not that popular. Sharia law is basically a governing moral system in Muslim majority countries derived from Islam. It states stuff like husbands can beat their wives and generally really oppressive things about women.",
"People are against Shariah law because of many reasons: * It allows domestic abuse * Women have less rights than men * Marriage and sex with pre-pubescent girls is allowed * Raping women is allowed * It allows the stoning of people (including those women who have been raped) * People who drink and gamble are to be whipped * Homosexuals should be executed * Sex outwith marriage? You'd be stoned/whipped * Slavery is allowed There are other reasons I'm sure, but these are the main ones I can find. M-103 condemns Islamophobia, which hasn't got a clear definition so could be interpreted as anything. This means that you could simply criticise the religion and you're being Islamophobic. A problem with this is Islam needs to be reformed to make it more compatible with the modern world (and things such as human rights, woman rights, LGBTQ rights etc.). Sources: [1]( URL_2 ), [2]( URL_1 ), [3]( URL_0 )"
],
"score": [
25,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Problems_with_Muslim_Sharia_Law",
"http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html",
"https://counterjihad.com/women"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
61959t | Why do so many world mythologies associate the sky with heaven? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfco4ll",
"dfcmxru",
"dfcoihl"
],
"text": [
"I think it has a lot to do with the fact that rain comes from the sky- when societies were largely agricultural based, their harvest and food and thus their ability to survive depended on the rains. No rain, no food, people die. So what comes from above is powerful. Also, there's so much unexplainable stuff going on in the sky- lightning? thunder? stars? stars that move? If you don't know what's going on up there, it can seem like there's a whole other world above you. So before modern science, people tried to create their own explanations of why different things in the natural world happened, and you get mythologies and religions.",
"The sky changes literally every day. It's changing faster than pretty much any other environmental factor. When it's dark out, you're seeing into infinity. The whole universe is above you. Kind of a terrifying feeling If you don't know anything. So it makes sense that if their are Gods, they're coming from the mysterious, ever changing sky",
"As a human, you're on the ground. If you want to, you can get deeper into the ground. So far, we haven't found a paradise full of happy souls under the dirt, so it can't be there. As humans, we can't fly, and until very recently there was no way for us to get higher in the sky than the nearest tall object. Anything could be up there, including paradise. Also you tend to make stories about things you can't change. People can move the earth around, swim in water, redirect rivers, all that stuff. Early humans couldn't do anything to change the sky, so it seemed magical and divine."
],
"score": [
21,
9,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
619vub | How does the "disregard" ruling work in court? How are the jury supposed to disregard something they already heard and is that what it means at all? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfcu02a",
"dfcu2y9"
],
"text": [
"Lawyer here. You see this a lot more in movies/TV than it happens in real life. If the judge instructs the jury to disregard a piece of evidence/testimony, it's because the evidence isn't admissible in the first place. (For example, a party might offer an inauthentic document into evidence, or the witness is going to give hearsay testimony.) In practice, there are a number of avenues to sort this out with the judge either (i) before the trial ever begins; or (ii) during trial, but outside the presence of the jury. With that in mind, it's pretty uncommon for a judge to say \"the jury will disregard X.\" He'll usually give some explanation. \"The jury will disregard the document offered by the defendant because it is not authentic.\" Juries tend to listen to that. They understand there are technical issues that they might not fully understand, but the judge presumably does, so they tend to defer to him/her. Additionally, if the judge instructs the jury to disregard something, there's a solid chance it doesn't make it into the record anyway, so the jury won't be able to review it in deliberation.",
"Usually it's for something that's not terribly important. For example, if a lawyer is questioning a witness and the other lawyer objects, the witness is supposed to wait for the judge to rule on the objection before answering. However, witnesses aren't lawyers and forget that, so they often start answering right away. In a situation like that, the judge would probably stop the witness, rule on the objection, and tell the jury to disregard what was said before the ruling. If it's something that was likely to change the course of the trial, the judge can declare a mistrial and will get really pissed at whoever caused the mistrial. Another time this comes up is when you have to introduce evidence to prove one point, but you don't want the jury to rely on it for other reasons. For example, if you are asking for punitive damages against someone the jury can often take into account their total net worth when deciding how much to punish them financially. However, the jury is also told to disregard net worth for all other purposes. The court doesn't want the jury to be biased against rich people they think can afford to lose the money, but there really isn't any other way to put on evidence of how much to financially punish someone."
],
"score": [
15,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
61a8u9 | Why has no one disrupted the home printer and ink industry yet? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfcwpbi",
"dfcxvay"
],
"text": [
"They have, sort of. Black and white laser printers have a significantly cheaper cost of ownership (when you include not just the price of the printer, but also the toner). So if people would realize that (a) they never print color, (b) home printed color looks like junk and you can get it done for $0.25 at Fedex Kinkos, and (c) ink is stupidly expensive...then they would just buy a laser.",
"There's no money in it. There was a time you could buy generic ink or toner for cheap, and cartridges were even refillable, then the major manufacturers realized that toner and ink could be the most expensive liquid people would buy, more per ounce than Chanel No. 5. So then it's been an arms race between printer manufacturers controlling their IP and generics delivering a compatible replacement. The generics are losing because the manufacturers figured out how to beat them at their own game. You see, if you have a printer that lasts the rest of your life (I have a 30 year old printer I will *never* give up, works better than anything else I've ever owned), then eventually the manufacturer will drop support for it and the generics can find themselves a market while the manufacturers struggle to sell new products because the old products still work - there's no need to upgrade. So they make shit printers. Utter garbage. If they don't break on their own, which, typically, they will, they're hard coded in their firmware to STOP WORKING FOREVER after a fixed number of prints. This is called planned obsolescence. There IS NO legacy market for the generics to dominate, and with everyone's shit printer always breaking, they have to buy new, so the generics can never get ahead of the latest DRM built into these machines - by the time they crack the codes and bring yet another new generic cartridge to market, their market is gone. Office printers aren't better. In fact, printer manufacturers make a god damn killing on service contracts and service certifications. That's why they jam all the damn time, that's why there's service men in the office every few weeks working on the printer. If they actually built a machine today like my 30 year old workhorse, that's just killing their revenue stream. In conclusion, anyone who wants to get into the printer market would have to adopt this model to stay in business. If they wanted to snub their nose at the competition, they may get an initial bear share, but once established, they'll have put themselves out of business."
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
61adl2 | How much access will be given to law enforcement and other entities, besides advertising firms? With be new bill passed to allow the purchase of browsing history from our ISP. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfd1268"
],
"text": [
"As I understand it the bill rescinded a regulation that has not yet gone into effect. So while it blocks a protection for privacy that may be vital/importent/effective, it doesn't alter law enforcement powers or your ability to access this data."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
61bffm | What is the differences between a bill getting pulled in Congress versus it going to a vote and failing? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfd6qkh",
"dfd8el5"
],
"text": [
"In other words, what future consequences does pulling a bill have, rather than if it had failed to get a majority of votes.",
"Voting in Congress is the result of negotiations. When voting for something is easy, you don't need to use any political capital to get it pass. In many cases you need to make promises and compromises to get the number of votes you need to pass the bill. With a bad bill like Trumpcare, anyone that was promised something to vote yes will still require the \"payment\". Pulling the bill will prevent the WH and the Speaker from owning anything to the \"yes\" crowd."
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
61bjcr | How do tabloids like the National Enquirer get away with publishing dubious and sometimes slanderous stories without being sued by those they're writing about? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfd8gu8"
],
"text": [
"[They don't]( URL_0 ), they get sued all the time. However, in order to win a lawsuit for libel (libel is print, slander is word of mouth) you have to prove that 1) it isn't parody or satire, 2) it isn't actually true, and 3) it actually damages the character of the subject of the article. Very few people actually believe anything the National Enquirer says, it's all but an open joke [with headlines about bigfoot]( URL_1 ). So if the National Enquirer says something about such and such celebrity (like [Jennifer Aniston being on steriods]( URL_3 )), that person has to prove that their reputation was actually damaged. It's *really* hard to successfully sue someone for defamation of character, because, at least in the US, we value the freedom of speech so highly and don't want to open the door for people to sue others over valid criticisms. That stops the really dumb tabloids pushing really dumb headlines that only crazy people believe, but what about the tabloids that aren't quite so out there and *do* have the potential to cause a lot of damage? A lot of celebrities are afraid of the [Streisand effect]( URL_2 ): when you try to cover something up in court, you inevitably draw attention to it. A tabloid might write a story that a few bored moms at the grocery store read, but otherwise it goes nowhere. You sue over it, and suddenly it's all over the news, that you're *so upset* over this *one story*, enough to sue, which means people immediately want to read this story and see what all the fuss is about. Even worse, they might assume that the reason you're trying so hard to cover it up is that *you're trying to hide something*, so the story is true. And you may still lose the court case anyway. So most celebrities ignore the tabloids as best they can and hope that any bad articles blow over without anyone noticing."
],
"score": [
15
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer#Notable_stories_and_lawsuits",
"https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/d1/21/59/d121598681c3eb01b0d4d3117b6fd3ff.jpg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect",
"https://malialitman.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/funny-national-enq-three.jpg"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
61cd6g | "nuking" the filibuster | I get the gist (changing the rules from requiring 60 votes to requiring a simply majority), but I've heard it can only be done at the beginning of a new term. Is this true, or can it be done at any point? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfdg8u7"
],
"text": [
"It can be done at any time. The Senate Majority Leader would declare Senate Rule 22(filibuster rule) a Constitutional question, and the Senate would immediately begin debating Rule 22 with a simple majority needed to change the rule."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
61ctc1 | Why do we readily label rich foreigners as oligarchs, when there are wealthy businessmen in the US that surely deserve that label as well? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfdl5hb"
],
"text": [
"If you got rid of the executive and judicial branches of our government, and left all power to the legislative branch without checks and balances, we would have an oligarchy. The rich can buy all the politicians they want, but our government is not an oligarchy."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
61d4gc | Why do movie subtitle translations change the content unnecessarily? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfdla4t",
"dfdwujg"
],
"text": [
"If the movie has a Russian dub, it could be a transcript of the dub (not a translation of the English). The reverse happens a lot in anime. Where the English subtitles are translated from the Japanese, not a transcript of the English dubbing. It's also possible that the person hired to translate the movie isn't perfectly fluent in English or Russian. Could be the translator misinterpreted the scene.",
"> they say \"You're ok!\" in English, but the Russian translation changes it to \"You're still alive!\", which seems to alter the meaning of the line since the person was not as risk of dying, but only being injured. The first thing to remember is that common phrases or sayings don't necessarily translate easily. The English \"You're OK\" can mean many different things, and there isn't necessarily a good translation. You've interpreted it to mean either, \"Your injuries are superficial\" or \"You have no injuries,\" which is reasonable in the context. But if the translation is, as here, significantly longer than the original dialogue, there's a problem. People need time to look down to find the subtitle and read it -- and reading comprehension is slower than listening comprehension -- and if there's more dialogue immediately following, there's simply not enough time to read a long string of text -- the original is a short three syllables, and with this kind of sentence, usually mumbled. Also, you may not have interpreted the original the way the subtitle writers understood it. \"You're OK\" can in fact mean \"You're alive\" or \"You'll live\" (which may in fact have been a closer, idiomatic translation of the Russian, although that's hard to judge without seeing the Russian text), and it may be that while you think the injured person was never in danger of dying, whoever did the translation may well have assumed that he or she did in fact fear death -- and that interpretation may not be unreasonable. There's also the possibility that it's an idiom of some kind. My Russian is very rusty, but it's certainly very common in English to say, \"You'll live\" when what we *really* mean is, \"Quit moaning, I'm sure that smarts a bit, but it's really just a scratch and it will heal by itself and meanwhile you're perfectly capable of walking normally.\" Sometimes a good translation is impossible, especially when wordplay comes into it. For example, in one comedy short I saw with German subtitles, the protagonist, strapped into a contraption controlled by the bad guy, is flipped over onto his back, looks up at the sky and exclaims, \"Heavens above!\" -- that being an expression of surprise. German has no expression that would work as a pun here, so it was translated as, \"The sky is above me,\" which just lost all impact. (They should IMO have just gone with a standard German expression of surprise, but apparently the decision was taken to salvage as much of the pun as possible.) Finally, of course, not every translator is a good translator. Mistranslations creep in all the time, and more often than you might imaging. In another movie, this time *dubbed* into German, I heard one character complain that he'd just discovered that his mother-in-law was an \"illicit extra-terrestrial\". I had to translate the German back to English in my head and came up with \"illegal alien\", which seemed much more likely."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
61dbl4 | - Why is Citizen Kane considered to be the pinnacle of movie making? | What is it about Citizen Kane that makes it such a highly regarded movie? A lot of the time when someone is talking about if a movie is good or not they'll say something along the lines of "It's no Citizen Kane or anything". It almost seemed to be used as a benchmark of moviemaking. So why is this movie so highly respected? What makes it such a good movie? Is it the acting, cinematography, sound design, etc? What factors make it the pinnacle of movie making? Also do you believe it deserves all the praise? Is the name it's built for itself deserved? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfdok7r",
"dfdoxwj",
"dfe28c6",
"dfdy2fs",
"dfdmxgm",
"dfe2rwu",
"dfe324t"
],
"text": [
"It's less about being the pinnacle of movie-making and more about being the _start_ of modern movie-making. In _Citizen Kane_, director Orson Welles revolutionized how films were shot. There are a number of cinematic techniques that were introduced in _Citizen Kane_ including low angle shots, multiple dissolves, deep focus, non-linear storytelling (in particular supported by the film editing), people talking over one another (most films were shot then as back-and-forth dialogue), full sets with four walls and a ceiling (most films then were shot on sets like stage plays -- 3 walls, no ceiling), incorporation of fake documentary/news reels (which Welles had pioneered on radio with _War of the Worlds_), expressionistic lighting, and more. All of these things are so commonplace today that you'll see them in many 30-second commercials, never mind feature films. But in 1941 they were all almost entirely new innovations that people had never seen until _Citizen Kane_. Watching _Citizen Kane_ today, you'd think \"What's the big deal?\" But the *reason* you think \"What's the big deal\" is because of all the techniques that _Citizen Kane_ introduced to cinema. Possible recent analogy: think about how the special effects of something like _Jurassic Park_ or _The Matrix_ in the 90's or maybe _Avatar_ in 2009 changed the way that people thought about how films could be made. _Citizen Kane_ had _ten times_ the impact that those films had in people's thinking about how films could be made.",
"If you look at the silents or early talkies, they are almost like theatrical plays. Static stage, camera, and lighting. The story is usually pretty linear, and told exclusively through dialogue (and maybe a bit of action) In Citizen Kane, most of the locations are filmed through several different cameras, some at some fairly unusual angles. And a great deal of care is taken with the lighting. All this gives a much greater sense of the locations being actual places instead of a stage with the curtains hidden from view. It also was pretty innovative with the narrative frame - there are flashbacks, montages, and so on. Citizen Kane wasn't necessarily the first movie to use any one of these techniques, but it did so many of them, and executed them so well that it has come to be seen as kind of a master class in how to use the unique properties of cinema to create artwork that wouldn't be possible in any other medium. And the acting, dialogue, cinematography and all that is very well done. It also probably acquired a certain amount of mystique because Orson Welles was such a young and unknown quantity in Hollywood when he made it, and then never really lived up to that early promise. It was also very controversial when it came out, because the incredibly powerful newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst (whom Kane was based on) tried to bury it during production.",
"There are a lot of reasons for Citizen Kane being highly regarded outside of its historical significance. As /u/DoctorOddfellow explained: > In Citizen Kane, director Orson Welles revolutionized how films were shot. There are a number of cinematic techniques that were introduced in Citizen Kane including low angle shots, multiple dissolves, deep focus, non-linear storytelling (in particular supported by the film editing), people talking over one another (most films were shot then as back-and-forth dialogue), full sets with four walls and a ceiling (most films then were shot on sets like stage plays -- 3 walls, no ceiling), incorporation of fake documentary/news reels (which Welles had pioneered on radio with War of the Worlds), expressionistic lighting, and more. But it's important to note that it's not just that Welles used these techniques, but *how* he used him. And in fact, many of the innovative things he did where already done in previous films (deep focus is used heavily in The Rules of the Game, 1939), but he was the first to do them all in a single movie. The final chapter of one film textbook I read was dedicated to explaining why Citizen Kane is so great, and it opened by stating something along the lines of, \"Every shot in the movie contains meaning, and the worst of the shots are merely very good.\" So to give you an idea, [here's a famous shot that students typically look at in film school.]( URL_0 ) Here are some things to look at: * Single shot once we enter the house/cabin. Creating continuity in time, and also means that the blocking in this shot is all related * Contrast between how the mother is dressed (formal) vs the father (casual) * The camera moves away from the window with the mother in the foreground and father in the background, suggesting further that she has control over the scene * They sit down. The characters are arranged so that the father is the only one standing. Usually a character standing suggests strength, but since he is still in the background and his dressed casually, this blocking convention is somewhat subverted, just as this scene subverts gender dynamics as a whole. Also, as they debate over the fate of a young Charles Foster Kane, he is scene in the background, between the two parents, playing in the snow. (This all being visible to the audience is an example of his use of deep focus). * As the drama in the scene escalates, the father moves to the foreground and the camera tilts up (still the same shot). The shot goes from a wide to a medium-wide, low-angle. The continuity in movement further articulates the rise in drama, and suggests a last ditch effort by the father. He now appears more menacing than before. Maybe there is more to his relationship with his wife and son? \"Anybody doesn't think I've been a good husband, or father...\"(we find out a few moments later that he is not a good father) Note: Charlie is still in the center, background. * As the mother signs, the camera tilts back down, excluding the father from the frame, indicating that he has no agency in this scene, or this moment. The mother owns the scene, the mother has \"won\" the scene * After the papers are signed, the camera rises, and the father moves back to the window and shuts it. The closing of the window following the signing of the papers, suggests that these documents have actually ended the boy's blissful childhood, a major theme of the movie. * They are all standing now and move towards the window, and the mother actually opens in one last time. The dialogue in the following closeup, with her action of opening the window reveals that she may not be as cold as we were previously lead to believe, that she does care about her son's well-being, and this is what she thinks is right for him. And that's just one shot in the movie. That's not even going into the overall structure of it and the depth of the narrative. There's a lot going on in Citizen Kane, and it's acclaim is not unwarranted. Roger Ebert did a commentary track for it, which is supposed to be fantastic. That can explain in more detail why it's a near perfect movie. Edit: Words",
"Besides its innovations, the performances are amazing, and the guts the unknown Welles demonstrated to take on William Randolph Hearst at the time is testimony to the power of art itself. The storytelling is so strong in certain scenes, also. Check out the dialogue-free scene in which Kane and his first wife grow older through a montage of eating breakfast over the years. She is shown reading his newspaper every day until the end when she picks up the rival paper, showing the rift that has grown between them. And the always phenomenal Joseph Cotton is the quintessential \"best supporting actor\". Watch the movie RKO 281 with Liev schreiber to learn more about what it took to make this film and why it's so important.",
"It's really more popular with people in the movie industry. It doesn't normally top the list of general audiences. It's partly revered because it's kind of a film making clinic. So many techniques used in the various aspects of cinema are used, and used very very well.",
"This doesn't answer your question, but it's one thing that adds to its mystique. Orson Welles co-wrote, produced and directed *Citizen Kane* when he was only 25 years old.",
"Well, for one it was highly innovative. Pioneering most, if not all, modern filmaking techniques. Even down to things like story structure, abstract concepts, location filming and more. Second, it is a really really good movie. Like brilliantly so. Tells a huge story in concept, but it's also cerebral, sensational, funny and deals with real human flaws. That is also super modern. A lot of stories in film beforehand were like, fantasies."
],
"score": [
881,
55,
32,
12,
11,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbGbqRWwC_Q"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
61dvnk | Why was tarring and feathering such a popular punishment back in the day? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfdsedu",
"dfdsjfy",
"dfdxjqy"
],
"text": [
"Besides making a chicken-man? It was done because it was painful and humiliating. The tar really stinks - and sticks. It would take many days for the tar to clean off. Trying to remove it by force was not really an option, unless skin is optional. TL;DR: Essentially it was a punishment intended to humiliate and try to coerce societal conformity through shaming.",
"To begin with, it was a very public spectacle. It shamed the targeted individual, harmed his reputation, and actually was harmful. The tar was heated so the victim had burned and often blistering and tearing skin. Then the feathers were applied. As well as sticking in the tar, they also poked into the wounds caused by the hot tar. Many times, the person was ridden out of town on a rail (from a split rail fence) for more discomfort and embarrassment. Pretty horrible image, isn't it?",
"It wasn't a funny prank type thing. It was horrible torture that almost always resulted in extreme agony with death to follow soon if the victim was lucky."
],
"score": [
29,
13,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
61g4u9 | why aren't Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism the dominant economic and political philosophies, respectively, in the United States? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfegnqr"
],
"text": [
"Because theoretical economics and the real world aren't the same thing... real world isn't all rational and devoid of emotion/morals. For example, economic theory of supply & demand suggests people would move from a place of few jobs/high unemployment to one with more plentiful jobs in a perfectly rational way. But theory doesn't factor in things like needing to sell a house, or a spouse having a job, or disruptions to kids' school/friends, proximity of family, etc. Or the fact that skills aren't easily transferable -- just because there is a shortage of nurses and unemployed apparel factory workers doesn't mean they can just jump jobs from one day to the next without training. Or in education, the moral belief in universal education for equal opportunity to get ahead vs. a theoretical model that would only provide schooling to those who can themselves afford to pay educate their children, etc. In all aspects of pure economic theory, there are similar breakdowns from theory to reality that need to be mitigated in the real world by blending economic styles."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
61gunq | why are the people who practice Islam called muslims, where does this name come from? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfedhc2",
"dfed86j"
],
"text": [
"It's a convention of the Arabic language. In a lot of cases, the word for \"the one who does a thing\" is formed by modifying the word for \"the thing\" and adding an M to the beginning. So Islam (the thing) becomes Muslim (the person who does the thing). For all the pedants out there, heck off, this is ELI5.",
"In a religious context, Islam means submission to god. The root word means \"Surrender\", as in surrender to god. Muslim on the other hand means one who follows Islam. It's a variant of the same root word that gives Islam, only Muslim means \"One Who Surrender\""
],
"score": [
18,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
61hqao | Why is the middle east so much more violent than western society? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dferk9m",
"dfeq2zg",
"dfekaiu"
],
"text": [
"They do not have liberal political and economic institutions which foster peace. Why these institutions do no exist is a tougher question, but some popular answers are: Religion: It is argued that Islam is inherently incompatible with Western institutions. This argument is put forth from people in the West and some Islamic scholars. Despite some problems in modern interpretations of the Quran, this seems unlikely since there are elements of liberalism in Islamic history. Also, the growth in Islamism is fairly recent so cannot explain the divergence between the East and West which started hundreds of years ago. Oil: Also known as the \"Resource Curse.\" The argument goes that an abundance of resources wealth makes governments less accountable to their citizens, allows governments to create late security forces, and prevents reforms. Scholars now seem to think the resource curse is dependent on institutional quality so it cannot explain something that precedes it. Cold War and Post 9/11 Interventions: The US and Soviets have bombed, overthrown governments, propped up dictators, and consistently intervened in the region under the pretenses of national security or to protect civilians. This strategy never seems to work, but the solution is always more. Outside intervention clearly explains current violence and could explain why better institutions have not yet emerged, but they cannot explain why they didn't emerge previously. Not enough war: This theory is that a critical step in state formation is war. Big ones and lots of it. This molds the development of states as the compete with another. However, the West has prevented full scale regional warfare from occurring which has prevented strong states from emerging. These strong states are needed to keep the peace in the region. Some point to how the US knocked down both Iraq and Iran which could be contenders for regional powers given their size, resources, etc. This theory is interesting, but it lacks scholarly support for explaining the Middle East. Colonialism: Foreign and arbitrary rule prevented autonomous development and much more. Once again, the problem is that the West and the Middle East diverged prior to Western colonialism. The divergence occurred during Ottoman rule, but people generally don't blame the Ottomans when they blame colonialism. It seems to be the institutional legacy of the Ottomans and Islamic Law that has caused the divergence between the East and West. Many of the legal systems in the region are Islamic (not all Muslim majority countries have Islamic legal systems) which is distinct from common and civil law systems. In Islamic Legal systems things that are crucial to liberal political and economic orders are less secure such as property rights and contract enforcement. Some also point to their banking institutions (interest is traditionally forbidden in Islam) and system of inheritance which both deter capital accumulation. Without capital accumulation, firms don't emerge, and without firms state authority cannot be adequately challenged. I find this argument most convincing. There are other potential answers, but theres unlikely to be a single answer to why it's so violent. Though the answer is embracing liberal economic and political institutions.",
"It's not. Murder Rates (calculated per 100,000 inhabitants) USA 3.9 Middle East 3.8 Source: UNODC",
"A combination of factors. First we have 3 religions that all worship facets of the same militant god who claim that region as their birthplace and birthright. Second, the area is historically tribal and we (western powers) divided it up into countries with no understanding of how relationships work in tribal society. Third, there is oil which we need, so we installed puppet regimes who's sole focus was to maintain the stable flow of oil. Fourth, after WWII we felt bad for the Jews so we turned a blind eye (or actively aided depending on your predisposition) while they carved Israel out of Palestine. Add all that together and you have a recipe for a powderkeg."
],
"score": [
6,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
61irh7 | how did the saying "to a T" originate? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dff4ax8",
"dfesrbv"
],
"text": [
"Per the OED, it is most likely short for \"to a tittle\" (a tittle is a tiny point in writing or printing, such as the dot on the letter \"i\") - so \"to a tittle\" means \"very exactly\", shortened to \"to a T\".",
"No one knows. There are some credible theories, but the origin is lost to time. URL_1 URL_0 URL_2"
],
"score": [
8,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://grammarist.com/usage/to-a-t/",
"http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/44266/origin-of-fits-x-to-a-t",
"http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/to-a-t.html"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
61j5i6 | Why are Asian people under represented in American sports and entertainment? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfewjg8"
],
"text": [
"Because most Asian's aspire to pursue careers in the STEM fields. Also it's apart of their culture. I'm sure you've seen many [memes]( URL_0 ) about how older generation Asian parents pressure their kids to get perfect grade and become doctors. Though it's a stereotype there's some truth to it. So Asians are not under represented in mainstream media because American society ignores them. It's mostly because that's not where their professional aspirations lie."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/high-expectations-asian-father?full=1"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
61jc8b | Why do chefs have to wear white and that tall dorky hat in the kitchen and where did this originate from? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfey90i",
"dff1dab"
],
"text": [
"The white is to signify cleanliness. The 'tall dorky hats' are called toques and, besides keeping hair out of food, they have good air circulation in the poofy bit. In practice, most chefs don't wear toques unless they're on display (when I was a cook ages ago, we usually wore baseball caps or skull caps). Jackets protect the cook from splatters and heat, and clean jackets will be worn when the cook is visible. The toque originated in the 16th century. The rest of the uniform became standard in France in the 19th century and then moved across the channel to Britain. From both France and Britain, it spread through the world.",
"While white clothing may show stains more readily (depending on what you're working with), it's much easier to clean, because you can just bleach out most stains. Colored chef's coats do exist, but they tend to not last as long in a working environment because any stain that can't be removed with detergent renders it unpresentable, and multiple washings dull the color. It's the same reason most hotels use white bedsheets and towels."
],
"score": [
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
61jtf0 | Why are there only a slim variety of Chinese/Korean last names? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dff2303",
"dff6n5v",
"dffar9z",
"dff2cae"
],
"text": [
"All the Kim's in Korea are self selected last names. Until the 1890's no Koreans had last names unless they were royalty. So then their Japanese overlords forced everyone to pick a last name. Kim's, Park's (Paks) and Lee's were some of the richest and most powerful royalty, so everyone picked one of those names, as they were the most badass names available. That's why most people in Korea have one of those last names.",
"I believe there are at least thousands of Chinese last names, but only a hundred or so are commonly seen, and even fewer are known to westerners. What I'm saying has no basis other than my Chinese origins, but hear this: 1. Polygamy was common throughout Chinese history, so say you have 1 man with the last name Wong, who marries 5 women with all different last names, but all 10 of their children will have the last name Wong. So common family names get exponentially more common 2. A ruler can bestow his last name to his subordinates as a token of honor 3. People settle in a place and name themselves after the place, so there were villages where the entire village had the same last name 4. Immigration to the west did not happen with \"variety of last names\" in mind",
"there ARE lots of chinese last names, but because chinese is a character-based language, lots of \"words\" sound the same. the sound of one character is the same as many, many other characters that have different \"spellings\"; when you speak chinese, you use context of the phrase to figure out which character \"spelling\" is being used for that certain sound. therefore, when you try to translate chinese last names into english characters, lots of them sound similar despite being actually different. also, the nuances of the sounds (like tones) are hard to translate.",
"Historically last names weren't actually a thing, they functioned more like titles owned by the nobility. During a period when the noble class system started dying out, commoners started taking up last names for themselves. Lee, Kim and Park surnames signified lineage of royalty, so many went with those."
],
"score": [
83,
20,
12,
11
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
61lbzf | What's the point of Congress passing bills to protect us if they can just be repealed later? | When the Senate voted to let ISPs sell our Internet history, they also repealed a bill protecting us from that very same act. What's the point of that protective bill being there in the first place if it can just be repealed? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dffcs22",
"dffdalc",
"dffj5eg"
],
"text": [
"Well, what's the point of having a congress at all if they can't change anything?",
"Any law can be repealed. Thankfully. You give an example of a law you liked that went away. But aren't you glad that laws you don't like could potentially go away someday? Do you think that gay people are complaining that they are no longer banned from being married? What was the point of banning gay marriage if we're just going to turn around and allow it?",
"In the American system, everything is meant to be \"easy\" to change (e.g., through normal political activities) except fundamental rights (as enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights). Even those can be changed — but it is intentionally meant to be hard to change those. Hence it is really important that the people who decide how the Constitution is to be practically interpreted (the Supreme Court) are not bonkers. The simultaneous beauty and terribleness of the American system is that it is always an \"experiment.\" Everything is moveable, changeable, to various degrees, based on the views of \"the people,\" variously filtered through representatives and proxies. At its best, it allows for a society that changes with differing beliefs about what is good and just, and it allows a society that can cope with changing circumstances that would have been unimaginable nearly 300 years ago (e.g., things brought about by radical transformations in our understanding of science and technology, whether atomic bombs or climate change). At its worst, it allows for rapid changes, the rise of demagogues, the ability for one group of people to suddenly change the definitions of how things are run and affect huge numbers of people that way. (In the original version of the country, the power of the centralized government was deliberately weak for this reason, but it has gotten much more powerful over the centuries, for a variety of reasons.) Note that this \"terrible\" version of things feels terrible no matter what political party you are, because there's always the chance that \"the other one\" will impose their way of life on you, etc. So, anyway. The ability for the system to change itself is a feature and not a bug. Whether you like it or not often depends on whether the most recent change was in your favor or not .That's not a good reason to oppose the fundamental idea of it, but there are plenty of differing opinions as to _how_ those changes ought to come about, whether, say, we need some new \"high level\" changes (e.g., a Constitutional amendment that would guarantee some definition of privacy) in our present age, etc."
],
"score": [
8,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
61lvm5 | Why was the major third musical interval considered discordant and ugly in medieval times, when today it is considered pleasant and harmonious? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dffgp8u"
],
"text": [
"Because the base tuning was slightly different, so the actual interval was also different. Add in that most medieval music was actually performed with stacked 4ths, so the third was discordant to the ear the same way the 6th would be to us."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
61m90u | Why were folks in the Middle Ages so violent and sadistic (e.g. various torture devices, public execution as entertainment, etc.)? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dffjug8",
"dffp6k0",
"dffqomw",
"dffnp09",
"dffkpmc",
"dffmc0a"
],
"text": [
"It could be because they didn't have much else to do. If I lived in a farmhouse with sixteen of my siblings (whom I also work with), and I wasn't able to read nor write, and I also didn't have a two inch by four inch computer in my pocket with limitless entertainment, and someone ran down the road and said someone was about to get pulled into four different pieces by four different horses, I bet I would probably go and see what he was on about.",
"I mean look at ISIS or Guantanamo, we're still a bunch of sadistic fucks deep down. We also watch love sports where concussions and numerous other injuries are the norm, so we haven't advanced much farther in that regard either. The world wss different back then. War was constant and brutal and suffering was just part of daily life. We like to think we have gotten past that, but the world isn't a safe place.",
"They weren’t. But not many people are interested about all the peaceful parts of the middle ages which was mostly farmers going about their lives.",
"A lot of the various torture devices are actually fake or were never actually used. Also, it's not like torture devices aren't being used today. I mean, look at Abu Ghraib. Also, legal public executions were still around in America as late as 1936. This, of course, excludes the public lynchings that were popular until the 60's. Americans watch people die on the news and online all the time. Especially when there's body cam footage of a controversial death. I'm not trying to just shit all over America. I'm sure this shit is sadly true everywhere. I think it's a sampling error. The violent and sadistic stuff from an era gets into the history books, not the normal everyday stuff.",
"These incidents were actually quite rare, they were too occupied farming and going to church.",
"Part of it was their societies were not wealthy enough to afford prisons. That meant the penalties for crimes were something that could be inflicted in a short time, like flogging, branding, pillory, or execution. And without mass media, to increase the deterrent value of the punishment, they were done in public. They were less entertainment and more spectacle and in some cases attendance was not optional."
],
"score": [
15,
10,
5,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
61mw3q | Why is that we only hear about the Italian mafia, but not something like a German mafia or a chinese mafia when they also had significant communities? | *In america | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dffon9b",
"dffr0x0",
"dffoshe",
"dffto59",
"dfglm1d"
],
"text": [
"The Italian mafia has been heavily romanticized in media (books, tv shows, movies, etc), in ways that other organized crime groups haven't. That's why you hear more about them. They were also particularly powerful groups, especially in cities like New York and Vegas, which helped more to drive knowledge of them (since well there's lots of NY stories and people there, and Vegas was a major hotspot of the rich and famous and gambling), this all helped drive the romanticization of the Italian mafia. Edit: I should also point out, the Italian mafia is NOT what you see in Godfather, that type of mafia culture was specifically created for the book and wasn't a thing that existed. Movies like Casino and Goodfellas portrayed it far more realistically (because they are based on true stories). More fun stuff, after the Godfather, some Italian mafia groups didn't get that this was totally made up culture of loyalty and stuff by the author, thought their groups were the \"odd man out\" of the culture and tried to actively change their organization's culture to reflect the one of the godfather, success was variable.",
"German mafia? What are they gonna do, make you an automobile you can't refuse?",
"The chinese had triads, the Irish had street gangs, and the germans had jobs (generally speaking)",
"Japan = Yakuza China = Triads Russia = Russian Mafia Latin America = Various mafias, gangs and cartels Theres definitely tons of large organized crime groups, the reason you dont hear about them is cultural. The western media is dominated by the US(especially in the mid to late 1900s). Hollywood and other US media gravitated towards the Italian mob for a number of reasons, they were powerful and influential in major cities throughout the US, and the US has a large Italian-American population. In the US the media is shifting from less Italian Mafia stuff to more Latin American cartel stuff. Years from now you'll be asking the same question about why we hear so much about cartels.",
"There is no German mafia. The fact that there were significant communities of immigrants is not necessarily what caused there to be mobs. Criminal secret societies like the triads and the mafia were already part of Chinese and Italian cultural tradition. It got exported to the US with the large waves of immigrants coming from those countries. If for \"normal\" immigrants America was the land of opportunity; it especially was for those who were used to circumventing corrupt governments, in order to enhance their own wealth and power. Then the incredibly naively implemented Prohibition, creating a booming illegal market for them, is what helped them skyrocket. It pretty much took the FBI the entire rest of the century to curb the mobs' power a little; then some more naive people felt the moment was right for a \"War on Drugs\", creating yet *another* booming illegal market. What could go wrong right. \"History has to repeat itself because people weren't listening the first time.\""
],
"score": [
33,
29,
14,
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
61r8p8 | All these random pyramid schemes in the US | So, whenever there is a reddit thread about things like scam industries, one thing that certainly pop up is the amount of scams that are around in the US URL_0 Some named are itworks/ younique / scentsy / leggings crap / lip sense / thrive and herblife I have literally never heard of any of these firms, however I have also heard of other companies that sell drinks I think at American universities? How come these things seem to be so prevalent in the States? How do so many companies successful enough that this is an industry? And why do they seem to be non existent in Europe? At least I have never heard of any of these kind of things in Germany/Austria | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfgndzb",
"dfgwf3v",
"dfgsrqv"
],
"text": [
"In the USA, pyramid schemes have long been illegal. Amway was the pioneer of \"multi-level marketing\" (MLM), and won a regulatory battle against the FTC in 1979: [In re Amway Corp] ( URL_0 ). They had been accused of being a pyramid scheme, but the FTC ruled that they weren't. After that, all such schemes could cite the FTC precedent, saying \"we're no worse than Amway\". They are officially \"network marketing\" or \"multi-level marketing\" (MLM) now. It's the USA, where it's important that you have the freedom to make money off of other people's gullibility. These schemes fall under more regulatory scrutiny in Europe, including the UK. Amway was shut down for a year in the UK (2007) and only reopened after legal action. As in the USA, it hinges on whether your income is dependent on the recruitment of other people: if it is, it's an illegal pyramid scheme. So why are they less common in Europe? I don't have a clear answer on that - it would require a survey of attitudes. But many people are aware that it happens in the USA and see the consequences in the news.",
"First off, there IS a different between a pyramid scheme and a multi-level marketing organization. Legitimate MLMs sell products, and also have their sellers recruit new sellers by offering a cut of their commissions. Things like Amway, Avon, Tupperware parties, some sex toy lines, etc. In many ways, these are the analogue of word of mouth marketing (say, an Uber driver getting a bonus for a friend that signs up), or affiliate marketing (Amazon affiliate), and these often provide a side business to earn some extra income for stay at home moms. There are also many scams pitching \"get rich quick\" schemes on a similar mode because there are lots of lazy people who think they can make a ton of money in short order. Some of these are so vague, people who are supposed sellers don't even know what exactly they're selling. The way to determine whether it's legit or a scam is to see whether the company makes more money from selling ongoing inventory or from the start-up kits. Some of these companies move lots of product because their sellers DO actually sell products. Others make all or most of their money just selling the initial stuff to new members.",
"There are two sides to the businesses. The products, and the MLM. Many of the companies sell actual products that people want to buy and will even pay a premium for. My wife buys the lip-sense stuff and swears by it."
],
"score": [
30,
9,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Amway_Corp"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
61ra56 | why does French have so many silent letters? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfgq4jh",
"dfgzdkd",
"dfh77x9"
],
"text": [
"It's non Phonemic, meaning that the writing system and the actual spoken language don't align. In fact technically there are no silent letters in the language, there are extra (vestigial) letters in the writing system. Also French is mild compared to English (at least to me, as a foreigner to both). Night? Are you kidding me?",
"The spelling of French has been evolving in a controlled manner since the 17th century. An institution called the French Academy acts as the official authority on the language, even though nowadays it's seen as more of an advisory role (nobody has to actually do as they say). Through the centuries, prominent French scholars decided it was more important to preserve the etymological aspect of their spelling (where the words come from) over the phonetic aspect (how they actually sound). For example, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian all went through spelling reforms that made their words look exactly as they sound. In contrast, French kept most of its old silent letters so that people can see what Latin or Greek term the word is derived from.",
"I question the premise of this question. Coming from French, I find English worse in this regard. With the added issue that things are often not pronounced the way they are spelled, and that pronunciation varies a lot based on context (e.g., read). To say nothing of where to place the stress in any given word (which doesn't matter in French). I have been speaking English for decades and still find that it's near impossible to correctly pronounce a word that I've never heard. French has consistent rules and silent letters tend to remain silent in all similarly spelled words. You can just sound things out and they will come out right. But there is no rhyme or reason to English pronunciation from my perspective. The stress thing especially grates because stress the wrong syllable and everyone looks at you like you've made up a completely different word."
],
"score": [
17,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
61rnp2 | Why do rappers always seem to have a mentor/producer who they owe their careers to and rock groups don't? | I'm thinking people like Dr. Dre or Kanye or others who seem to have a whole slew of people who owe their careers to them and pay tribute frequently in their songs. I just don't hear about that with rock musicians like, say, Jack White, even if they do own their own studios. Is it because rapping has a lot more features or what? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfgphaq",
"dfgsdre",
"dfgu1ql"
],
"text": [
"Most rappers dont make their own beats - the actual music, melodies. They write lyrics and rap.",
"A lot of successful rappers also take a turn at being producer, which is where some of the more famous ones have made a lot of money. So, young rappers almost always have a more seasoned star helping them produce.",
"I think most rockers are more than perfectly happy to talk about who they look up to and who was a major influence on their styles. But, the mechanics of their creative process is much more solitary traditionally in the rock world, especially when they're starting out and trying to establish themselves and stand out from the crowd (and their mentors). They like to be in control of the process. if they're in a band, they're in a band for a reason and they're happy with the chemistry of it. To disrupt and dilute that chemistry be adding too many outside influences could be disastrous to what they're trying to achieve. Only when they've achieved a measure of success on their own do you usually see bands or solo rockers paying homage to and supporting their mentors and influences."
],
"score": [
60,
9,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
61s5oi | How are paintings restored? | How are famous paintings restored without the restorer actually putting paint onto the surface to fix cracks? How does the process work? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfh30cj"
],
"text": [
"First they study the picture to see how the painting constructed. They use X-rays and ultra violet lights to see what paints and varnishes were used.and if any repairs have been done before. Also knowledge of the artists usual technique and of the time period are important. Once they have this info they might put a new backing on the canvas to make it stronger. Then they use solvents and knives to gently clean away old varnish and previous restorations. They do fill in the missing areas. But they use special compounds that can be easily removed in the future. As well as detailed records of the work that was done. Then they cover it with special non-yellowing varnish to keep it looking good."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.