q_id
stringlengths 6
6
| title
stringlengths 3
299
| selftext
stringlengths 0
4.44k
| category
stringclasses 12
values | subreddit
stringclasses 1
value | answers
dict | title_urls
sequencelengths 1
1
| selftext_urls
sequencelengths 1
1
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
63jtg3 | What is going on in Syria | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfurk59",
"dfutjxt",
"dfuuk93"
],
"text": [
"> How does Assad get away with using chemical weapons? And why are they using them on civilians and children? Because supposedly under a deal negotiated by Obama and Putin just after a similar chemical attack in Ghouta, the Syrian chemical weapons program were supposedly disassembled and destroyed. Turns out that was not the case > Who does USA back? Are they torn because Assad is evil but the rebels aren't much better? I keep hearing about US drone strikes, who are they targeting? In the early years of the war, US' focus was on getting Assad out of Syria which is why CIA were supplying vetted rebel factions with TOWs and ATGMs. When IS began expanding after Mosul, US began focusing more on containing IS than getting Assad out. That is when US (the Defence Department in particular) began supporting Kurdish YPG (a far-left group) during the IS siege of Kobane. Since Kobane, YPG has been the primary partner of US on the ground in rolling back IS territory (Tel Abyad, Hasakah, Shaddadi, Manbij and now Tabqa, Raqqa). Of course, they have to take into account Turkish concerns over YPG links with PKK (which committed terrorist attacks in Turkey), so they facilitated the formation of SDF. SDF was basically an umbrella group composed of YPG and other vetted Arab groups. What US hopes is that eventually the Arab factions lessen YPG influence on the ground while appeasing Turkey. They are not succeeding on both counts: Turkey sees the Arab groups within SDF as YPG lackeys while YPG themselves are indoctrinating new Arab recruits with their far-leftist Bookchinist ideology. US is primarily targeting IS but they also target JN/JFS/HTS, all of which are Syrian incarnations of AQ. > Why is Russia such a strong supporter of Syria? One part is for legacy reasons due to former decade-spanning ties between then-USSR and Syria which is symbolised by the Russian naval base in Tartous. Another one is because Russia sought to prevent regime change because they feel slighted by what happened in Libya. They consented only to a limited no-fly zone but which under France, UK, US led to Gaddafi's overthrow. They are still smarting from what they deemed as western duplicity in trying to overthrow a government (which they might see as a prelude to something similar happening in Russia) > Other than the war crimes, why do people hate Assad and why are they rebelling against him? Is he a bad leader or is it mostly religious reasons? Ba'athist Syria is a very authoritarian state that was virtually run by Mukhabarat (especially the Air Force Intelligence which serves as the support base for Bashar's father, Hafez). What started the war were the brutal suppression of protests starting from Daraa calling for Bashar al-Assad to give up power. Which is not to discount from the fact that many in the opposition have sectarian motives. Most prominently the fact that Assad is from the minority Shia-aligned Alawite sect which is abhorrent to Salafis and other Sunni extremists. > Is the conflict nearing an end? Is there going to be a \"winner\" or truce anytime soon? The conflict is in the beginning of its end. When the government has recaptured Aleppo, all hopes for a rebel victory and the removal of Assad from power is completely lost. What remains to be seen is the degree of the government's victory (i.e. what would be their stance to the now emboldened and powerful YPG/SDF, will there be a political solution or will they opt for a complete military victory over the rebels etc.). As for IS, their days are numbered. SDF is now bearing down on the gates of Raqqa and once the Iraq is finished with IS, there's a good chance that Iraqi Shia militias will cross over into Syria and obliterate IS presence in their last untouched territories in Deir Ezzor.",
"Edit: Formatting, and including the second-to-last question. > How does Assad get away with using chemical weapons? After the gas use of 2013, it was and still is unclear who used it. There are indications that it was Assad, the IS, some other group or even the Turkish Government in a \"false flag attack\". Because it is so difficult to find out who did what in war (this is called \"attribution\"), it is hard to definitely prove who used the gas. Assad then agreed to have his gas destroyed. I have no idea how much actually was destroyed. Now there was a new gas attack. The US and its allies blame Assad, the Russians claim Assad's air forces accidentally blew up a Rebel gas storehouse. I have no idea which one is true. But the problem remains that there is no hard evidence that Assad used the gas. As long as there is no prove, you can't really do anything. Also, what could be done? The US could invade, remove him from power, basically Iraq 2.0. US leaves, IS takes over the ashes. Also, removing Assad would mean direct confrontation with Russia, immense costs, tens of housands of dead civilians (which feeds into IS propaganda) and many dead US soldiers. > And why are they using them on civilians and children? IF Assad uses them, then it's collateral damage. The rebels and terrorists don't use special military barracks or military buildings but set up in normal houses, schools, hospitals. Gas doesn't make a difference if it kills combattants or children.They are collaterals. > Who does USA back? Most easily, the Kurdish Peshmerga. They are the military of Kurdistan, an autonomous region of Iraq. They support the Kurdish resistance is Syria and get support in form of air support, supplies and training by the US. One of the main Kurdish forces in Syria is the YPG (People's Protection Unit). The YPG is the main force in the large alliance SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces) together with many ethnic and religious minorities, local militias, and moderate rebels. How powerful each of them are, how moderate, and how strong their chance to really establish a Syrian Democracy, I honestly can't tell. > I keep hearing about US drone strikes, who are they targeting? Islamist groups. Most notably IS, Al Quaeda, and their numerous sub-groups. The US does not directly attack Assad's forces or allies. > Why is Russia such a strong supporter of Syria? First Russia was an ally of Syria for a long time. Russia must show that they defend their allies, or nobody will want to ally with them. Then, Russia has its only Mediterranean military base in Syria. A new Syrian government would be pro-Western and close this base. The Russians would lose influence in the Mediterranean. Also, Putin uses foreign military operations to show strength to his followers. The Russian economy is hurting, but he followers can forgive him that when he shows strength and power. With the involvement, Russia feels like a cold-war super power again that keeps the West on the edge of their seats. So Putin profits domestically from it. Lastly, Qatar had and has plans to build an oil pipeline to Turkey and Europe. Such a pipleline would make Europe far less dependant on Russia for oil. This is especially why Assad refused this pipeline. A new pro-Western government might allow this pipeline, which would seriously limit Russia's influence in Europe. (There is also the [conspiracy] theory that refusing this pipeline is the reason why the West wants to remove Assad.) > Other than the war crimes, why do people hate Assad and why are they rebelling against him? Is he a bad leader or is it mostly religious reasons? Assad's regime, while secular and one of the better ones in the Middle East, was still a brutal dictatorship where you could disappear in a secret torture-prison. At the start of the Arab Spring in 2011, protests were mostly economic. The people asked for economic reforms because prices (especially food) were rising, unemployment was high, and the economy in general was in a bad shape. Assad's government promised many reforms and started some of them. They also pardoned a few opposition leaders. However, at the same time protests were brutally suppressed by police and later the military. What many consider the spark for the escalation of violence was in 2011 when 15 children were spraying anti-government graffiti on walls and were arrested and tortured for it. When the parents asked for the release of their children, they were allegedly told \"Forget your children. If you really want your children, you should make more children. If you don't know how to make more children, we'll show you how to do it.\" When you get to this point, you kind of don't see an alternative no peaceful protests anymore. > Is the conflict nearing an end? Is there going to be a \"winner\" or truce anytime soon? I don't think so. Too many countries have in interest in a prolongued civil war (Russia, Turkey, Iran, Saudi-Arabia) and the opposition is too fractured. I would love to hope for and end and a free democratic future for the Syrian people's, but I'm afraid of just getting my heart broken.",
"Starting off by saying that I'm not a fan of Assad and I do not approve of the Syrian government's actions. I'm also not going to act like he's the worst guy involved in this conflict. At this point Assad has the forward momentum and has cut off most of the rebel groups from their supply lines that stretch back to Turkey. That was why you saw a bunch of videos with people claiming they were being genocided in Aleppo when the Russian supported offensive there cut off the roads to Turkey. Were civilians dying? Yes. Was there much that could be done about that? Sure, the rebels could have let the civilians leave rather than using them as human shields and then trotting out their bodies for the cameras and blaming the Russians and Assad's forces. Assad has zero reason to use chemical weapons at this point, because he has nothing to gain and everything to lose. When you examine who has the motive to use them, it isn't the Syrian government. While it's still possible they used chemical weapons, logic would dictate we examine all of the possibilities and weight our judgments accordingly. Additionally, you have to keep in mind that one of the leading sources used by Western publications for sourcing war crimes in Syria is the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Sounds like a reputable NGO, right? Nope, it's one dude, a shopkeeper who lives in Coventry, U.K., who has no ground access to verifiable firsthand accounts in Syria. URL_0"
],
"score": [
51,
7,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Observatory_for_Human_Rights"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
63lj62 | How does Banksy publish books anonymously? | Banksy is a very well known figure for graffiti art and his protest art, he has published books and had exhibitions for his works. How then does he remain anonymous? Is it as simple as signing a non-disclosure agreement with his partners or is it more complex? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfv164w"
],
"text": [
"Two parts discretion, one part NDA. You work with the same people, who are all financially invested in keeping the working relationship going. Even if there was no NDA, they'd still want to keep on good terms so they get to publish the next book."
],
"score": [
63
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
63ljru | What are "Protected classes" And what are there purpose? | I got the gist of it, they're people protected by law from being discriminated against because of stupid things like sex or race. But what are they for/what's the point? What stops employers from making up any reason to fire someone or a business owner to not sell to them? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfv0vtn",
"dfv50c3"
],
"text": [
"> But what are they for/what's the point? The point is exactly what you said: to protect them \"from being discriminated against because of stupid things like sex or race.\" > What stops employers from making up any reason to fire someone or a business owner to not sell to them? Technically, nothing, but the law isn't stupid. In the US, in most states, in most situations, you are \"At will\" employment, meaning an employer can fire you for (almost) any reason or for no reason at all. So let's say you're a racist employer that doesn't want to get hit with a discrimination suit. You're a genius, so you exploit the part of \"at will\" that allows you to fire people for no reason. So you fire *only* people of a certain race, but don't give a reason. You're not giving a reason, so it's not discrimination, right? Wrong. Even if you are using a non-discriminatory policy in a discriminatory way, that is still discrimination. The courts will look at what you are actually doing to see if it is discriminatory. This is pretty much the reason why \"separate but equal\" was ruled unconstitutional: while *in theory* it was non discriminatory, *in practice* it was very discriminatory. So while you might get away with being discriminatory at a low level, for a short period of time, the longer you behave in a discriminatory fashion, and to a broader degree, the more liable you are likely to be found when someone calls you out for it.",
"Your first question's been answered quite satisfactorily, but the answer to your second is a bit more complex. The others have gotten it right. The idea of 'legal loopholes' doesn't hold a lot of credence in reality, and judges aren't stupid. However as for what stops employers from making up any reason? The answer is unlawful termination lawsuits. If an employee has been fired and alleges they have been fired because of their membership in a protected class, they can file an unlawful termination suit alleging that. At which point, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that the wrong occurred. Essentially, the employee says 'they fired me cause I'm black', the employer says 'we fire him because [X], not because he's black'. The employee has to prove that his story is the right one. As the suit progresses, they will have a legal right to demand production of documents and records from their former employer that shows hiring and firing practices. The employee would also be allowed to introduce evidence. So, if the business's records show that they have fired employees of a protected class for uniform violations, when others were only given a warning, that's good evidence. If the employee received e-mails or communications with racial slurs or denigrating comments about race. All of this can come in for the employee to show that, despite their former employer's claim, the employer terminated the employee for their membership in a protected class rather than the stated reason. Now, is it possible for an employer who's firing peopled based on race to dance through the hoops and show that there was a legitimate reason for firing the employee for reason rather than race? Of course, but they're going to have to defend their claim against the allegations and evidence of their former employee. However, this is how our legal system works."
],
"score": [
13,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
63m666 | Why do high schools in the US care so much about sports? Is it like this in other countries? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfv7a01",
"dfvuz9k",
"dfvgigp",
"dfvr4j9",
"dfvgmlg",
"dfvonf9",
"dfvpw85",
"dfvccry",
"dfvst1t",
"dfvl8cu",
"dfv6yi5",
"dfw1ia9",
"dfvdkdt",
"dfvork5",
"dfvvnlh",
"dfvqp3z",
"dfvvb5z",
"dfvsrk0",
"dfvt5kp",
"dfvse05",
"dfvu4xb",
"dfvvs61",
"dfvfrm9",
"dfvhrok",
"dfvs6co",
"dfvua4z",
"dfvseie",
"dfvgah4",
"dfvq4sd",
"dfvqhsq",
"dfvux8w",
"dfvw90p",
"dfvptf5",
"dfvwods",
"dfvtohj",
"dfvd87v",
"dfvysth",
"dfvxtqw",
"dfwdib1",
"dfw26q9",
"dfvug9h",
"dfvuwyw",
"dfvtgbg",
"dfwjd1m",
"dfwcwtx",
"dfvy6zo",
"dfw19b1",
"dfvqmqw",
"dfw4ke9"
],
"text": [
"Generally, other countries don't. In other countries, sports are generally run on the 'pyramid system', which means that a team can advance into the league above by winning the league below. Theoretically, any amateur team right at the bottom, even as a 'hobby team' has the potential to go right to the top. As every community will have a team at some level, the local support tends to attach itself to this team (or the nearest professional team, or both) rather than to the local high school. In terms of advancing to the professional leagues, individual players will often be signed up to the youth system of a professional club, so unlike the US, success at sport in the education system does not provide a direct pathway into the professional game, hence it has less consequences, even if the players involved are just as committed as in the US. In the UK at least, university sports are taken more seriously than high school sports, and playing/training facilities are often very good, although large scale stadia as in US college football are unheard of as are the sums of money invested - again, this is because university sport does not generally form part of the pathway into professional sport. Certain events between rival universities may attract large crowds, but often that's related to the tradition of the event, rather than the importance of the event as a sporting competition, although the events may still be keenly contested.",
"Easy, the sports culture in the US grew up alongside the schools. Have you noticed that sports around the world are centered around \"athletic clubs\" and such? Well in the U.S., most began as high school and college sports and with no pro sports (apart from like golf, baseball and a few others) even the best athletes would quit after graduation. The idea of serious athletes became culturally relegated to school age men and women until the 20th century, so naturally, the fierce regional rivalries that sports usually breeds, emerged in the high schools and universities in America, not clubs. Even when pro sports came of age, they paled in comparison to college atmosphere and energy for decades. The 20th century saw the Olympics and other international competitions take hold. While other countries developed through sports clubs and creating \"Ministries of Sport,\" the United States had no need since, their schools were doing all the work already, and they were an instant heavy hitter on the international scene, dominating in a lot of sports. To this day, the US has never seen a need to develop the nations athletes any other way than using the High Schools as the prospect developer and the colleges are training centers. This is hurting a few US sports, like soccer, where academies are only just now finally being built that train players much better than the NCAA. A lot of Men's sports are suffering because schools are legally obligated to have an equal amount of male and female athletes. Plus, the governing NCAA puts strict training hour restrictions on the athletes. Which makes sense so a coach doesn't overwork an engineering major, but is bonkers for a US male gymnast who is going to the Olympics against a Chinese athlete who trains 10 hours a day. EDIT: I posted this in a comment but it's very topical here. Stephen Fry described college sports as basically the most American thing to exist. URL_0",
"In the US, sports are seen as a (potential) revenue stream for the school if they can get people attending games, paying for tickets or concessions, bringing in grant money from organizations that do scouting, etc. Often, the sports programs get more attention because the administration believes that money put in to the sports teams is money that they will see returned and able to be reinvested in other areas. It's not always(or even often) a net benefit to the school to put that money in to sports, but it's something that has to be examined on a case by case basis for each school- if the school budgets in your area are a matter of public record, it might be interesting to compare sports spending to revenue from sports related sources.",
"Australian here. When I went to the US, I was really surprised to see how much attention was given to university sports in particular. I got the impression that everyone on campus sort of knew what was going on with their sports teams. My friend (who goes to UCLA) thought it was funny how surprised I was to see a university basketball game being covered by the media. I don't think we give that much of a shit. I could be wrong, but from the two universities I've been to, I haven't had a clue what our sporting teams are up to, and I don't expect many of my friends do either. Edit: a word",
"Here in the UK it tends to be clubs outside of schools rather than the schools themselves. Schools have sports teams but usually limited to the popular ones, mostly football, cricket, rugby, netball and athletics. Fee paying schools will typically have different sports they have teams for in addition to the above. Anything who shows talent will often sign up to the youth team for established sports so if that happened in the US you would have the LA Lakers under 11 team for example, and it is at that level that the real competition exists. As there is no draft system it also suits the clubs as they can uncover and develop a potential £100m player without having to buy them from another club. I do like the school sport culture in the US though. Until you hit the big time the only people in the crowd will be parents of the players. Must be nice to run out in front of hundreds or even thousands of kids supporting you at that age. I used to be a mid-talent runner and was lucky enough to be cheered on by about 150 people once and that was amazing. I never won anything though but just having people cheer your name shaved half a second off each lap.",
"This will sound like I am not being serious but I am. Parents in the US think their kids are all going to be professional athletes. They see it as a way to get ahead to get scholarships to advance in life and to live vicariously through their kids. As a Middle School coach I cannot tell you how many parents have come up to me and told me that I am not utilizing their kids properly. Things have changed dramatically in the last 25 years. There was a time when high school sports especially in more rural areas we're about a community coming together. Friday Night Football was like Sunday morning church. A chance for everyone to come together and take a little bit of Pride and where they're from. Now parents are just crazy",
"Down here in Texas, my school's football stadium costs $36 million dollars. The school has a history of being the best school in my city and they intend to keep the status. Our football team produced numerous NFL players and is one of the most prominent teams down in Texas. The football culture down here is crazy, it's what you do on Friday nights, every week. Even though we are a top 30 high school in academic standards in the U.S, the school cares about the sports and activities a lot more then they do about writing contest or chess etc...",
"Sweden here, our schools do not care even closely to the same amount that they do in the US however sports is still a big thing here just non school related. Already as a young kid some fotball teams (EU fotball) only play the best players on the team and bench the worse ones, honestly the worst example of this was my friends little brother who was cut from playing after he missed an open goal. I can only imagine how much of a shit that took on his confidence. Edit: There are still sports related school events however I don't think any school spends a large amount of money on sports instead of general improvements unless of course they are a school known for sport related educations.",
"James Michener wrote a book in 1976(!) called \"Sports in America\" that examines this very issue. It's a combination of belief in the very unlikely odds that a child can become a pro athlete ( the odds against progression from kiddie league to high school to college to semi pro to pro are incredlby high, each step the culling gets higher and higher percentages), the very publicized success stories of professional athletes along with the concomitant glamorization of successful athletes at all levels to make this seem like a path any child can take (again any child can start but in reality only a tiny percentage will succeed), often given as an excuse for funding athletic facilities over academics. Even back then, the highest paid person on college campuses was the football or basketball coach and due to monopoly powers, most college athletes at sports successful schools are not compensated for their labor in any way commensurate with what income they bring to the university, so mostly free labor for university with a few kids getting paid with an education in exchange. (edit) a recent review reveals very little has changed in the 40 years since the original publication URL_0",
"Depends on a lot of factors I'd guess..... there's a high school near where I live that wants to build a career technology building but they'd need to tear down their football stadium and move it to a more central location to be shared by multiple schools in order to do so. Parents of students don't like this for various reasons due to memories of the stadium so it's actually in doubt as to whether it will be built now. Conversely the largest high school in my state is also one of the best in terms of academics and sports and generally it's campus is large enough to build a whole bunch of stuff including a new stadium on top of the career technology building it already has.... mind you that school would likely make enough money from sports to build the stadium without the School districts money if they were allowed to keep instead of putting it in the general district funds. As it stands that large high school is the only high school for an area with a population of around 100k and only know are they building a 2nd high school in the area. The school was built to handle about 3k students originally, the technology building added about 600 to that, and it still needs about a dozen trailers due to overcrowding because they never bothered to plan ahead...... at the same time they are adding onto other schools that are around half filled with students. Suffice to say SD's are retarded Should be noted those 2 schools are within about 20 miles of each other separated by a river and city boundaries",
"This started back in the universities in southern England. There is a number of top universities in close proximity to each other, mainly Oxford and Cambridge. Being this close to each other meant that they were competing for the same students. So there is a long history of academic and social showmanship between these universities. And this extends to extra curricular activities like sport. There are yearly sports competitions between these universities with a lot of prestige on the line. However the academic competitions is still the most important. When students from these universities came over to the new world and started separate universities they continued the tradition of competing between the universities for prestige. However the first settlers were usually not from the rich families that could afford good education so the academic competitions were hard to follow for the public who focused more on the athletic competitions. And the established collage and high school sport series made it hard for competing series to be established that were not associated with the academic institutions. So other countries does have some competitions between universities and high schools but mostly academic competitions and sports only in some cases. However the money and prestige that is found in high school football is found all over the world but not associated with schools but as independent sports clubs.",
"High School Baseball is still a thing in Japan and ridiculously popular. The annual high school tournament is broadcast live on TV and becomes a source of national pride from whatever prefecture they come from. Its called **Koshien** and the entire thing sweeps up the country like crazy. When I was in Okinawa, everyone was glued to the TV to watch a bunch of 18 year old kids slug it out on account of the fact the local team from that area got to the final. Football (soccer) less so, but they do broadcast the high school cup final live on TV as well. Baseball in Japan is kinda fucked up though. The professional league loses a shit ton of money because they still run it like its the 1960's and don't understand the modern-age with slick marketing and whatnot. A big problem you have is that many of the kids at the high-school level get really bad coaches and they are often worked to death. Especially at Koushien. Matsuzaka Daisuke who latter played in MLB, once pitched 17 innings, as a high-school kid. Crazy. The whole concept of sport-science, technical coaching, fitness etc is very low. And its all blood and thunder nonsense. This is why soccer is continuing to dominate because they take a 21st century approach and get in qualified coaches teaching kids and get them thinking like athletes at a young age. You don't get that in baseball. Its all tradition and bullshit. In terms of facilities and spending, I really can't comment that much. But often I find that Japanese schools pay for a lot of shit for their kids. And they'll equally build an arts centre and baseball field as much as they do tennis courts and libraries. Its equal opportunity spending all across the board if you go to a school which excels at pumping out gifted kids in whatever field. I will say this though, they train like a motherfucker. 5-6 days a week. Very common for sports teams in Japan, even to the university level. Even if the team is shit, they'll still train. Its the whole 'ganbaru' - never give up bullshit which consumes the country.",
"European here. I've never gone to a school with a sports team, if that answers your question. I've only *heard of* two schools with sports teams, and they just play each other once every now and then for fun. The US is crazy. There should be separation of sports and education. Edit: Inbox lit up. Summary of clarifications: * Professional sports is not the same as physical education. * You want to do sports? Go nuts. I did by joining a couple of clubs. * A school should not be in the *business* of sports. I've yet to hear a counter argument about what logically connects \"education\" with \"professional sports\", aside from \"meh, they both are about young people\".",
"German here. Sports and education are nearly completely separated; there are no competitive sports leagues neither in school nor at university (and basically no athletic scholarships for uni, then again the fees for a semester at public universities are only around 100 Euros). There is of course mandatory PE and schools offer sports as afterschool activities and sometimes even compete with other nearby schools but it isn't really a 'thing'. The philosophy more or less is that sport is a private thing and PE is there rather to show students different sports and incentivise them to do sports on their own time in sports clubs (where competitive sport happens) and school is just for education. Also, as the vast majority of schools are public the schools may ask for something but in the end the budget of the school is at the discretion of the city; the school is more a branch of the city than a separate entity.",
"Everything in here is negative. To some extent I think that some schools go massively overboard in their attention to sports, but this is a tiny minority of schools. When done within reason, I think it's a very good thing. Some good things: 1. Building a sense of community and pride in your school and town. In a lot a small American towns the school is really the only thing that is there, so it's a natural focal point. 2. Teach teamwork, how to engage in positive competition, and good sportsmanship. There are many other activities that can do this too, but sports are a good way to do this. 3. Teach individuals responsibility, time management, work ethics. Again lots of activities can do this but the pure physicalness I think strips it of a lot of other complicating factors and is a good place to do this. 4. Build social connections. Self explanatory. Being on a team striving towards a common goal builds friendships in a way that almost nothing else does. Again, doesn't have to be physical. My personal experience at my high school: We had state championship level soccer and lacrosse teams, girls and boys, and decent track and field hockey and hockey teams. I played sports and also did a bunch of other more intellectual or cultural activities; the most valuable thing for my personal development was definitely sports. Sports let me make friends with a cross section of the school that I wouldn't have been close to otherwise. Lessons I learned in sports transcend all activities I engage in today. Some of our best athletes were also talented in academics and other things like theater or music. They went on to great colleges and are generally good people. High school isn't just about learning calculus. It's about learning tons of other soft skills that benefit you for your whole life. I was a better student in college, working, and in grad school for having done competitive sports in high school. Tldr: too much of anything is bad, but sports can be a super positive and valuable part of high school.",
"South African here. I was in high about 15 years ago and sports was massive. We had to go to war cry practice every lunch time, during which the Prefects took roll call to confirm attendance, we also had to attend all first and second team home games (where roll call was also taken). Most schools had a good number of football/rugby fields (a rival school had 22 fields ~), multiple tennis courts, basket ball courts, an olympic sized swimming pool, shooting range, etc..",
"Canada here, In Canada our focus on sports is generally professional hockey. Our best hockey players are drafted into semi-professional leagues at the age of 16 to start developing talent. In Canada, going to college or university to play hockey is usually a downgrade from our semi-professional leagues. Each region has a semi-professional league; OHL (Ontario Hockey league) QMJHL- (Québec Major Junior Hockey League) WHL- (Western Hockey League) This is the reason why Canada is so good at hockey- because we treat our prospects like professionals from the age of 16. Forgive me if I made any mistakes.",
"To all the people guessing \"for the money\", does anybody actually a source for that claim: high schools spend money on sports with the expectations of return? I understand they might spend on sports or that there might be some money made back, but that claims is so blatant -- that administrators spend with an expectation -- there should be a study or survey somewhere. It just sounds too much like people trying to make up a story to fit their negative views. There seems to be a lot of evidence that sports has strong positive influences on academic and life skills. I played in high school (and also did national academic competition), so maybe this is my bias. Here is a link summarizing other studies and heavily sourced: URL_0",
"This is also regional, I went to school in Texas and California. In Texas you get time of from classes and a lot of perks, in California no one gave a shit. That's just my personal experience and I know other schools in my area gave some care about sports. I've never seen anything like I saw in Texas though. In California I went to a pretty academic focused school as well, and some schools we interacted with were absent of traditional American sports I.e. Football. In the end, just like everything else it just depends on where you are. It's less an American thing and more a regional thing.",
"Everyone has already mentioned the funding part. Hell, i even went to a fine arts middle school that selects their students through art competitions and etc, and they still spent more money on sports than the arts. For every public US school, the English and history and music and art classes will have to fundraise for supplies and textbooks or use the same stuff for 10 or 15 years, while the gym and sports will have brand new equipment, new auditoriums and fields and stuff. Its ingrained into the culture sadly. At least up until todays generation of school kids, if you weren't athletic and on a team (especially as a male) you were a failure to many. Even to your parents for a lot of people. School administration and many teachers treated athletes like celebrities and were much more forgiving with any mistakes. It's been this American culture that all real men should be good at sports even as children and to be ashamed if you aren't. Academics and intelligence wasn't valued by many when I was in middle and high school. Although it definitely was in elementary school. Also, for many Americans that can't afford a good college or can't get a good scholarship, being good at a sport greatly increases your chances of getting into a better college and getting a good scholarship.",
"Please don't think a football stadium in Texas you saw on the news is representative of the entire US. I think a good way to go about this is talk of sports facilities. In the US a football field with a running track around it and a basketball court/gymnasium is fairly common in a town of 5,000. A baseball field or soccer field may also exist. In larger, more affluent cities you'll see a swimming pool.",
"My brother got a full-ride to college on a football scholarship and a fiend of mine who is still in college may be getting drafted to the MLB soon. I can't speak as to why sports *aren't* as blown up in the education system in other countries, but I can tell you why they *are* in the united states. On a high level, it comes down to money. High School football acts as a fundraiser for many schools. Our education system in the US is pretty shitty, and a lot of money is raised for the school through things like ticket sales, snack shacks, T-shirts, etc. which allows the athletics department to fund itself freeing up funding for other school programs. If the team isn't good then people don't care as much about the games (you'd be hard-pressed to find school spirit around JV and Freshmen teams, it's mostly parents at those games). If people don't care they don't go to the games, less money is raised, facilities and uniforms don't get updated and other education programs get cut to sustain athletics, the good coaches seek jobs in better school districts, athletes don't get adequate coaching, teams suck more, the cycle perpetuates itself. However, when students at the high school level perform well on the field with proper coaching and adequate resources, they get scouted by colleges. High Schools want their students to go to good colleges so they can get more funding. They want to be able to say \"we had x% of students graduate and go on to these prestigious Universities and our graduates received over $xxx in scholarships!\" That leads to more funding which leads to better teachers and more programs, which means people want to live in those districts and then the districts have higher real estate value because everyone wants to live there, which means more expensive housing which means people living there have higher incomes which means more in taxes which means more funding that can be given to schools (but not all schools, only schools that send kids to college), and the cycle perpetuates. Having your students get picked up through college sports is a great way to pump up those graduation and scholarship numbers, especially when it provides a way to shove some of those under-performing students through the door at graduation. The amount of money that goes in to college scholarships for athletes is insane. The reason *colleges* can afford to give out those scholarships is because *their* sports teams are a great source of revenue for them. The school that takes 18 yer old kids and spits out professional league athletes gets a LOT of donations from alumni because it gives those graduates something to get passionate about and a reason to stay involved. A side note is that in America, where you went to college is a big deal. Not just because of academics but because people who went to the same school tend to build relationships in the job market. The bigger the sports program, the more money the school gets from donations. The more donations, the better the professors and facilities, which means better education and more selective acceptance rules (only accepting kids who are more likely to succeed OR more likely to play professional sports), which means higher chances of placing students in to jobs after graduation that can go on to make bigger salaries and have more money to donate to their Alma-mater. Why would they go back and donate to their schools? Because of fucking sports and because the athletes they watched play in college or \"used to see at parties\" went on to play for the NFL or the NBA or the MLB. The professional sports leagues are a big deal and have tons of money because fans buy their paraphernalia and major brands pay billions of dollars to have their logos on score boards in stadiums and air their commercials during televised games. These brands are attracted to athletes, and athletes are attracted to money, so major league sports and corporate America have mutual interests. And why do Americans give such a fuck about professional sports? Because 99% of people who have jobs and buy shit and spend money are spectators to the sports, not athletes. Ever since they were in high school they were raised to watch from the sidelines while a few athletes actually competed. Friday nights were they nights they went to football games because that's where everyone else was going, and they made memories and the fanfare around school sports was exciting and that's what we've learned to look forward to culturally: sports. Now seeing your team play in the super bowl or the World Series is like Christmas only it's an even rarer occasion. So people make a big deal about sports because sports have deep roots in our economy and it need to be self perpetuated. The cycle continues.",
"Portugal here. Schools do have some sport-related activities outside PE classes, but overall they aren't anything worthy of caring about, it's mostly for good fun where classemates sign up for teams when they wanna play a friendly match, although I'll be the first to admit that our schools suck for the most part when it comes to creating a healthy environment, so kids tend to sign up for official sports clubs when they wanna get serious.",
"I know in smaller communities where one school services the entire town it's a form of incentive. In theory kids who only care about sports will keep their grades up.",
"India. Everyone is in a race to get educated and get a job in India/US. Sports instead of education is generally looked down upon because sport is not seen as a valid career. This maybe because there's really only one popular sport in India - cricket; and the national team has place for only 16 players. Those are really bad odds in a population of 1 billion. Edit: A word.",
"It's the best chance anyone from your home town has of getting rich, let's be honest you guys aren't that smart and the contaminates in the water aren't helping.",
"Although other countries can be as sports obsessed about one or maybe two sports (emotionally obsessed, if not financially obsessed), I think it's four factors that contribute in the U.S. 1. Professional sports is a huge portion of the entertainment industry in the U.S. -- whether that's in advertising, endorsements, ticket sales, salaries, etc. 2. College sports (especially football and basketball) are usually the feeder system into professional sports. (One big difference is baseball, which draws from a much wider range of experience and has its own \"minor league\" system, alongside high school, American Legion-sponsored, and college baseball programs.) Importantly, too, I think: college programs and sometimes even high school teams gain fans in many areas that aren't/weren't until recently served by pro sports teams closer than an hour or two away for home games. There's a built-in fan base among a school's graduates, too, of course. 3. Most importantly: college and high school sports programs can show achievement and progress faster than traditional academics, due to the smaller number of people needed to focus on it, the lower initial cost to participate (later support switches the ratio dramatically, as OP cited), and the more easily demarcated measures of success (scores) and shorter timelines (seasons). The president of the University of Oklahoma wasn't joking in 1951 when he told a state legislators' hearing why the school needed so much money for education: \"We're trying to build a university the football team can be proud of.\" (He didn't get the funding he was seeking, by the way.) Here's a more recent proof point of the priority many U.S. states place on sports over, well, just about anything: [The highest-paid public employee in 39 US states is either a football or men's basketball coach]( URL_0 ) 4. Some will argue, but a long tradition of anti-intellectualism (or at least discomfort with intellectual achievements) in U.S. society at large and the increasing escapism of 20th century entertainment add to the other three factors for a recipe where sports and athletic achievements are valued far beyond any actual contribution to society.",
"The US school systems values athletics because of the correlation between outside activities/athletics and academics. Those involved in a number of extra curricular activities are more likely to achieve higher academically. Athletics is mainstream, but much of that funding is also used in other activities within the school. Athletics usually receives more public mention. But that's just because there is less to talk about with a drama program that does one or two plays per year.",
"I haven't read every comment but one thing that I haven't seen anyone say yet is that the football field and gymnasium at the high school are the areas that are seen most by community members and other area schools. It's polish, yes. These areas are, for many, the only idea they get if what the ENTIRE school might be like inside. So, along with the other factors people have mentioned, it starts to become clearer. Still, you'd think they'd want the sidewalks in good condition too.",
"UK comments are a bit ambitious here. You would never see UK university sports televised or seen as 'just below' the top tier like the US. At Your average state run 'high school' (11-17 yrs). Sports have gradually slipped quite far down the list,. Sounds like the US is on a different level",
"In Switzerland they barely care at all, at least at the schools I've been to. We still have PE and two sports days a year, but when it comes to school teams we only have a volleyball team (I think). We do have a ski week organised and partially sponsored by school during our winter holidays, so that's cool.",
"In many small towns in the US, high school sports, and football in particular brings the community together. A town of 1000 people may have 500 or more on a Friday night in the stands. In that way, it's not only the students that benefit from nice facilities, but the entire community. Friday Night Lights and Dazed and Confused are movies, but they do a very accurate job of portraying what sports are like in many small towns.",
"Ireland yes, GAA is huge and a lot of finance goes into it (still nowhere as big as US cares tho)",
"One thing many might not consider is that the adult failed athletes often care more about these athletic programs more than the kids do so they can live vicariously through the kids. Anyone thats gone to high school in America and doesnt really have any interest in sports can see it.",
"I asked the very same.question a few months ago. I'm a Canadian immigrant living in the USA now and found it crazy how people act with high school or even middle school sports. I'm a custodian at a high school and it just blows my mind. The school which is apparently broke built an 8 million dollar football stadium but can't afford to hire more help for me.",
"A lot of scouts come to high school football games to sign people up and give full rides to college. Academic scouts show up to academic events that tend to take place at a university or a big conference area (like international science fair) or it is test based and they only look at results before bringing you to a specific place (like AMC). Therefore, high schools care a lot more about how their fields look (because it helps to put the players on their best foot forward with scouts) instead of other facilities that \"no one important\" sees.",
"The US is full of small town communities. Sports at the local high school became the local rallying point for these communities, the way to meet up regularly, bond together, and beat the small town down the road. It grew from there.",
"High school baseball in Japan is taken pretty seriously. URL_0",
"So that we can win the most medals at the Olympics, proving we are #1 in competition. That's why.",
"Also let's face it, a lot of American towns are mind numbingly boring. Sports gives people something to look forward to.",
"Same with university. People will, at least in the TV shows I watch, keep their university sweaters. I don't even have a university sweater. It's just somewhere I happened to have spent some time.",
"New Zealand here. My sister recently spent some time in the US. Apparently your University stadiums are better equipped than our professional ones. We like our sports here, but they're not the be all and end all.",
"Follow the money. Sports programs make the school money, when the sport makes a school money they expect to get compensated for it (equipment, jerseys, practice facilities) A portion of the what the sport makes, goes back to the school.",
"in HS the Robotics Team I was apart of Went to Fucking nationals across the US and the school didn't even put out an announcement or anything flat out ignored that we existed, instead put out an damn end of day Assembly to praise the damn football team for ALMOST making it it 4th or something stupid in the school bracket. yeah.. fuck schools and their spots obsessions /rant",
"Indian here. I admire how the US spent such serious money on young athletes. Over here in India, all people care about is \"good marks\". High schools have literally no concern for sports. The fame of the institution lies in the grades of their students. Ever wondered how such a large country as India(2nd in the population standing) fare so badly in the Olympics? There is no infrastructure as in the US.There is no support. The money that US spent is completely justified in my opinion.",
"I think it's attributable to the decline in interest and value placed on academics at these (primarily public) institutions and a re-emphasis on the business of America which is business. These large scale sporting events are more of a giant spectacle that just happens to feature a game of some kind and gives the students a semi-legitimate reason to start drinking at 6am. The bottom line is always selling Coke and hot dogs and candy and overpriced poison and hopefully your team wins which will create more benefit to the university's bottom line than any breakthrough research ever could.",
"Discipline. Scheduling (I had hockey practice before and after school). Working as a team. Anticipation. The ability to learn how to be physically fit on the inside and out. There is so much a young, impressionable person can get from a competitive sport that the benefits are almost endless. The best part is that it's repetitive behaviors that mold a young person in a very positive way. I haven't played organized team activities for 20 years and I still appreciate what sports have done for me and my attitude towards work ethic. From the memories I have with countless teammates and personal achievements, there is no replacing my youth. To this day, I wish I was young enough to relive those days of glory.",
"Money. It's one of the few things that draws in revenue. College sports generate millions of dollars not only for the school, but for the surrounding businesses. Over at Michigan State University, they were so concerned about getting fans to and from the games efficiently that they actually spent $42,500,000 to lower a road to go UNDER a railroad crossing, as well as widen it from 2 to 4 lanes, all to satisfy the heavy traffic during sports events. It was worth the school spending $23 million of it's own money (with the rest appropriated from other sources) to make going to and from games more efficient, because that's just how much revenue the games generate for the school and local businesses. The claim is that it was necessary for all traffic every day, but anyone from the area will tell you that the talk revolved almost entirely around how it benefited the sports program. URL_0",
"There are multiple factors in the US, and the importance of sports can vary depending on the school, but here are some considerations (I’m not saying any of these are good things, this is just what it is): * **Sports are a big enrollment draw for smaller, semi-rural schools.** School districts are allocated budget money on a per students basis. The amount varies in each state and in some places by district, but lets say one enrollment is worth $7000 in funding. 150 kids playing sports at your school represents over one million dollars in funding. If you don’t offer sports, or your sports programs are outclassed (i.e. outspent) by other, larger districts with open enrollment they will pull in your students and your funding. * **Sports still represent a significant opportunity for *some* kids to go to college.** **In theory**, If kids are in a good program, they have a better chance at getting sports scholarships. * **There is a really weird culture around sports in the US in general.** Just as a lot of low income people tend to operate on the basis that they’ll be rich “someday” a lot of kids play sports with the ultimate aim of being a professional athlete, and a surprising number of parents and communities support this notion even though it’s a statistical “1-in-a-million” because there’s only something like ~14,000 professional athletes in the US that make above 35,000 a year. * Again, considering small towns, sports programs are a traditional aspect of the community and link together a lot of “good ol' boys” that have money to provide to the school, and won’t provide it if there aren’t sports programs for their kids or their friends kids to indulge in. * Physical activity and competitive sports do have proven benefits for some students, but the degree of obsession you witness in some places is just a weird confluence of attitudes that happens to be more powerful in American communities."
],
"score": [
3692,
1928,
1544,
1174,
317,
286,
242,
236,
187,
102,
58,
56,
42,
32,
23,
20,
20,
20,
18,
17,
16,
15,
14,
13,
13,
10,
10,
9,
9,
7,
7,
7,
6,
6,
5,
5,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuPeGPwGKe8"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/james-a-michener/sports-in-america/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.nfhs.org/articles/the-case-for-high-school-activities/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.businessinsider.com/us-states-highest-paid-public-employee-college-coach-2016-9"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_school_baseball_in_Japan"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://michiganltap.org/sites/ltap/files/workshops/materials/Farm_Lane_Road_Railroad_Underpass_Project.pdf"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
63myir | Why do irish surnames have an o' at the start i.e. O'Farrell or O'Carrol? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfvdmu5",
"dfvd26m",
"dfvhy1h",
"dfvd1l7",
"dfw1m0m"
],
"text": [
"Surnames used to not be a thing. People had given names and their surname was descriptive. If it wasn't what they did for a living (i.e, smith, thatcher, cooper) it a reference to their lineage. Someone might introduce themselves as David, son of Douglas, son of Brian. This was the Irish tradition and O' meant \"grandson of\" while Mac meant \"son of\". So David would be David MacDouglas or David O'Brian. However, David's son William would be William MacDavid or William O'Douglas. At some point where surnames had to be preserved to record family relationships for inheritance and the like, the name \"froze\" at that point and was adopted as a static surname for future generations.",
"These Irish surnames referenced ancestry: \"O'\" stood for \"grandson of\" \"Mc/Mac\" stood for \"son of\"",
"Most surname prefixes mean either \"son of\" (e.g. Arabic *bin*) or \"from\" (e.g. German *von*). Something I found interesting: historically, in a number of cultures, these were only used by nobility, presumably because if you were a commoner, no one gave a shit who your dad was or where you came from.",
"Similar to Mac or Mc. \"Descended from.\" O'Connell, descendant of Connell. That type of prefix occurs fairly often in many cultures.",
"\"Fitz\" means \"bastard son of\" (or \"natural son of\" if you want to be polite). For instance, Henry VIII's son with his mistress Bessie Blount was named Henry FitzRoy (Henry, bastard son of the king)."
],
"score": [
166,
31,
18,
8,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
63n0gf | Why did everyone decide paper money should be rectangular? | why not a square or triangle? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfvdlxv",
"dfvdino",
"dfvdewb"
],
"text": [
"Because it's the most efficient shape. Is stacks and fits the hand well. Triangle shape would be very impractical to carry, stacks of square money would be very impractical to hold.",
"Triangles require cuts in 3 directions. Squares and rectangles only require cuts in 2 directions. Now if you think about it, squares require more cuts than rectangles, because you don't have a long side and a short side.",
"Because it's the most obvious choice. It's the most efficient way to cut paper without waste I guess square could be an option tho"
],
"score": [
14,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
63nbds | Who created the common tune we now associate with ancient Egypt? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfvge7v",
"dfvqtzg",
"dfvglim"
],
"text": [
"\"Streets of Cairo\" was written by Sol Bloom in 1893 to go along with an Egyptian themed exhibit at the World Fair. [The Straight Dope]( URL_0 ) has the complete run down. It was likely influenced/ripped off from some Algerian folk music.",
"Okay what about the one we associate with China/Asian themes? \"Da-da da-da-da. Da. Da. Da. Daaaaa.\" Someone will know what I mean...",
"The Bangles, of course! \"Walk Like an Egyptian\" is a song made famous by American band the Bangles. It was released in 1986 as the third single from the album Different Light. It was a million-selling single and became Billboard's number-one song of 1987."
],
"score": [
36,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2695/what-is-the-origin-of-the-song-theres-a-place-in-france-where-the-naked-ladies-dance"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
63ndmo | In the quote "The best thing since sliced bread" What was so great about sliced bread? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfvhiai",
"dfvgqlb",
"dfvgxzp"
],
"text": [
"Pre-sliced bread saves you the time and hassle of trying to slice a loaf of bread yourself, and each piece is of identical thickness so sandwiches were more uniform. It was a hallmark of the modern age that housewives could spend less time preparing bread for sandwiches and could spend more time cleaning.",
"bake a loaf of bread and try to slice it yourself... it really kind of sucks. getting thin consistent slices is trickier than you would think. its also tongue in cheek, a fairly trivial advancement used as a gauge for great progress.",
"I think it referred to the fact that bread could now be mass produced and it was then found in every household instead of traditionally baking bread from scratch. The statement is there to invoke that something is a great enough idea that everyone should be a part of it or that it could affect everyone (much like sliced bread making its way to almost every home). So it is to comment on some idea's innovative qualities while also commenting on the fact that it could be huge should it find its way to the market. Nowadays I simply hear it sarcastically, but I figure that is some of the history behind someone saying that phrase."
],
"score": [
13,
9,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
63nsoj | The different political factions in Syria | I was reading about the Syrian Civil War, after reading about the Sarin gas attack today and wanted to know more about it. The wikipedia article mentions four "factions": Syrian Arab Republic Syrian Opposition ISIL Rojava What I find interesting is that both the Syrian Oppisition and Rojava are funded/supported(seemingly) by the US according to the article, yet they are opponents of eachother? Why is that? Do they not have similar goals? What does each faction want/hope to achieve in Syria? What's the difference between them all? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfvmard"
],
"text": [
"Syrian Arab Republic: Assad's government. Its a dictatorship, secular and Arab nationalist, (i.e anti non-arab). It used force against protesters, tortured political opponents and has used chemical weapons against its own people. It was also quite stable, secular and is thus considered better than the alternatives by some. It is supported by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Opposition (FSA, al nusra): Rebels. They are the anti government faction, and tend to be sectarian (Sunni). They are extremely fractured, so its difficult to generalise a lot. Al-Nusra are affiliated with Al-Qaeda, and have clashed with the other rebel groups. They are primarily backed by Turkey and other Arab nations, and are supported by the US against IS. ISIL: Also know as IS/ISIS. They are a hyper sectarian caliphate that holds territory in Iraq and Syria (and fight guerrilla wars across the Middle East). They gained international infamy after beheading journalists and posting the videos online, and have launched terror attacks in Europe. They have no international support, but receive volunteer fighters (illegally) from other countries, such as the UK or Denmark. Rojava (SDF): An autonomous region in north Syria, controlled by the SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces). The SDF are a secular group with an ideology based around democracy, feminism and local rule, heavily influenced by anarchism and Marxism. They are supported by the international coalition (US and friends) and are the primary anti IS force. They are also Kurdish dominated (rather than Arab) although they are ideologically egalitarian. Turkey hates them with a passion as the main SDF group, the YPG, has links to a similar (although terrorist) group in Turkey, the PKK. The US supports anyone who is against IS, and also funds the rebels in the hope of toppling the government (although is slowly giving up on that). The SDF gets funding and support to fight IS. The below map shows the situation, Red is Government, Yellow for SDF, Black for IS, Green for rebels, and blue for Turkish forces and proxies. URL_0 Finally, inter-faction relations: Government is at war with IS and the rebels, has a truce with the SDF Rebels fight the Government and clash with IS and the SDF IS fight everyone SDF mainly fight IS, sometimes attack the rebels (or are attacked by) and have a truce with the government. Obviously the war is too complex to encompass in one post, so I'll elaborate on anything you ask about to the best of my ability, (however limited it may be)"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://syriancivilwarmap.com/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
63on69 | why can you buy cheap farsighted glasses in supermarkets and general shops but can't buy nearsighted glasses in the same places? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfvslk8"
],
"text": [
"Weak \"farsighted\" glasses aren't actually meant for farsighted people who need full-time glasses. If you're farsighted, it's recommended that you get a prescription from an optometrist and that you get a set of lenses made specifically for you. This will ensure that your prescription is actually accurate, and that the lenses of your glasses are the proper distance apart (since not everyone's eyes are the same distance apart). Wearing the wrong prescription or misaligned lenses full-time can cause eyestrain and headaches. The glasses you find in the stores are reading glasses, for people with *presbyopia*. This is the age-related decline in your ability to focus on close-up objects. It's not the same as farsightedness. Your eye has a lens inside that changes shape to change the eye's focus to whatever distance. It flexes to look at close stuff and relaxes to look at far stuff. Nearsightedness and farsightedness are \"calibration errors\", where the lens doesn't focus the light properly onto the retina no matter the distance. They require full-time correction. Presbyopia is that as you get older, your lens loses its ability to flex as hard as before. It's still calibrated properly, so you don't need full-time glasses, but once an object gets close enough to your face, your eye can't flex enough to look at it anymore. Since it's not a condition that requires full-time lenses, you can get away with treating it using cheap glasses with an imprecise prescription and misaligned lenses. So you can buy cheap reading glasses at the supermarket. But there's no corresponding \"age-related nearsightedness\" that could be treated by cheap nearsighted lenses from the supermarket, so they don't sell those."
],
"score": [
14
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
63ppz9 | What do fraternities and sororities actually do? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfw0y6z",
"dfw6ksj",
"dfw3yo5",
"dfw4s7i"
],
"text": [
"They do many things. 1) Set up a structured way for people with similar interests to become friends. 2) Provide student housing. 3) Network with Alumni giving professional contact points for after you graduate. 4) On most campuses they provide community outreach with various volunteer activities such as habitat for humanity, working soup kitchens, etc.",
"The entire point of a fraternity or sorority is to develop friendships that will hopefully be long lasting. By virtue of that and the idea of looking out for each other you can often share professional support when you get out of school for professional contacts and references. Greeks generally have to be approved by the university in order to be active and gain access to university resources. And in return the universities generally force them to do community service or charity work to remain active on campus to justify their existence.",
"For sororities, they usually go to events together like baseball games, go to social events like costume parties or frat parties, and do activities that include fundraising and charity. It's an easy way to make friends in college.",
"Sororities are big into academics and community service. Lost so sororities have a national charity they are associated with, and then each local chapter is also usually associated with local charities. Throughout the year there will be many events involved with those charities. With such a large group of women, you are bound to overlap in your classes with sorority sisters so it's a great resource for study groups and tutoring. Our sorority actually had a test bank, so we could go review our professor's old exams. At my univiersity the average sorority GPA was actually higher than the all women's average. I can't speak for fraternities since I don't have much experience with them, but sororities are a really great organization to get involved in as far as academics, leadership, networking, and giving back to the community goes."
],
"score": [
21,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
63q9m8 | Where does one start in order to get into public office? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfw6kyl"
],
"text": [
"As someone who has done so in the past: Get yourself known in the community. Get involved somehow. Go to council meetings. Talk with the local newspaper. Volunteer for charities. Oftentimes, many towns have a quasi-public welfare organization that is hungry for help and expertise, and is a great way to get inroads to multiple people (they rely largely on donations, so you get to meet with both wealthy people and civic leaders). Work with your United Way or local library, organizations that usually have a board of directors made up of local leaders. This doesn't happen in a week. You'll have to get yourself to a point where if someone mentions your name in a public setting, a non-trivial number of people will know who you are. Remember, this is going to cost you nothing but time, but it's going to take a lot of your free time. (Of course, you can short-circuit this by gaining name recognition in some other way, like owning a small business or being a doctor/lawyer/dentist/etc.) So before you start, you will need a modicum of community support. It may not require much, but enough that enough people can tell enough people and vouch for you. Enough that when you announce your candidacy, people will know who you are and sign your petition to run. After that, it's up to you. Running for local office is your best start at this; usually some sort of city council seat or, if you're feeling ambition, a row office or commissioner. (If you live in a bigger city, there's alternate titles for a lot of these positions.) It's extremely rare you'll get to the state or federal level unless you've either been elected to a lower office or you've build up a reputation in some other way. Now, if you are asking about the mechanics of running for office (i.e., how to get on the ballot)--sadly, there's no one answer. Almost every position requires a petition of some sort, where you have to get X number of registered voters who live in the jurisdiction to sign a petition to get you on the ballot, but the number of voters and their party affiliation restrictions varies greatly. Of course, I'm leaving out the obvious stuff--you need to know the issues, you need to have a reason why people would vote for you, and so on."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
63r5wj | Why do we attach a special value to rounded numbers? Why is the 200th of something more special than the 243rd of something? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfwg0wa"
],
"text": [
"It's because of our counting system. We work in a base 10 system so any number which can be expressed as y x 10 is seen as some sort of a checkpoint. This also means that numbers ending in 5 are seen in a similar light, as (1/2) x 10 is seen as neat (compared to 2.43 x 10, for example). Other than that, I guess it's in human nature to like things that are more symmetric, uniform, and easier to remember. You wouldn't remember a string of random numbers if I were to type them out, but you would remember a 1 followed by 10 zeros."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
63rmzl | Why is the latest Pepsi ad causing so much political outrage? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfwgtj4",
"dfwh2m3",
"dfwic3v",
"dfwg8t6"
],
"text": [
"Protestors and police have had a pretty volatile relationship. Looong history of protests becoming violent either through the protestors becoming rioters or through the police becoming violent... Or both! No no matter whose side you're on when looking at a protest, emotions can run pretty high. So for some people on both sides of the political spectrum, this ad is making light of something that people feel very strongly over. The ad carries an implication that the only thing standing between polarising views is a can of Pepsi. If you're on the side of the police, the ad implies that they need to lighten up with a refreshing carbonated beverage, when cops have been seriously injured or even died while doing their jobs. And if you're on the side of the protestors, the ad implies that we can overcome the social ills of the world (inequality between the sexes, racism, LGBT+ rights) if we sat with the oppressors and shared a can of Pepsi or two. Add to that the general venom surrounding anything a Kardashian-Jenner does, and you have yourself an internet shitstorm.",
"It reduced the protesters to a bunch of chill kids just looking to have fun and get involved, rather than showing them as politically engaged and at times violent people trying to force change. It reduced the police from a paramilitary organization enforcing government rules which disproportionately affect certain demographics, to a bunch of hot guys who are swayed by a pretty girl and can of pop. If it had been protesters sitting in the street and one grabs a can from a cooler and rolls it over to a cop who picks it up, that would have been one thing. But it portrayed the protests like block parties and not as the serious force for change they are meant to be.",
"Well, it looks like they're stepping on a lot of toes... * They portray a public demonstration as some kind of wacky good time that just about anyone can join in at any time, like it was some kind of block party. As others have noted, a protest is not a good time; it's a serious activity that needs to be very carefully managed lest it disintegrate into an unorganized mob. Ironically, one of the bigger threats to protests these days have been uninvited strangers who have their own agendas, particularly ones who want to start fights with the cops. * A member of the Kardashian clan goes from \"hey guys what's this\" to \"figurehead of the movement\" in less than 30 seconds... and also somehow manages a wardrobe change from a supermodel outfit to a slightly more \"street\" model outfit while still walking. I'm sure all the people who actually organized that march really appreciated that. * Approaching the riot cops directly is a dangerous move, and generally should be avoided unless you've studied their standard operating procedures very carefully; their rules of engagement may include verbal warnings or detainment before you actually physically contact any officer, and your action might escalate an already potentially very tense situation. * And the overall issue is how blatant they are in trying to connect their product with young, \"hip\" politically active youth (read: the 18-35 demographic that marketers would figuratively sandpaper their own eyeballs to reach). If you view yourself as a politically active youth, you have reason to be pissed that they're using something resembling a Hollywood clone of you to sell a product. If you think the youth these days are crap (see: all the dissatisfaction directed at the \"millennial generation\"), then you see a product you may or may not like associated with a bunch of crap you hate. * These kids are stomping around in broad daylight, some of them carrying large musical instruments; they should be drinking water, or at least gatorade^tm.",
"Might just be me ... But seems pretty petty. But people are connecting the fact that black people like M.L.K fought very hard for black rights, and this ad basically says \"hey if you have them a Pepsi it would have been ok\""
],
"score": [
46,
18,
17,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
63s6og | Why are people who are married to US citizens getting deported? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfwjh7l"
],
"text": [
"Marriage to a citizen does not automatically entitle one to citizenship or residency. There's a specific process for immigrating as a spouse of a citizen, involving fees, paperwork, sometimes lawyers, the whole deal."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
63sd9l | Why are republicans and democrats so divided over health care? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfwm4vl",
"dfwor5y",
"dfwnqja",
"dfwqmxk",
"dfwqzvt",
"dfwkp2j",
"dfwsa40",
"dfwt12d",
"dfwrr2r",
"dfws67r",
"dfws2u2",
"dfwsex1",
"dfwteb6"
],
"text": [
"There are so many different questions broken down into your one question. At the core, American value is still built on top of individualism. The prowess and success of an individual is celebrated. Like celebrating the star of the team more than the team itself. So at times, Americans can have a knee jerk reaction to something even remotely close to socialism. One must also not discount the level of marketing and propaganda from the cold war. We were promoting the value of Capitalism vs Communism (which we conflated with socialism). So it became politically toxic to support something that resembled socialism. Fast forward to now, insurance costs continue to rise as there is no natural cost control. There's no market force that restricts insurance companies from raising costs on the individual. This is possible because from region to region, there aren't a lot of competitors. Also if you by insurance on your own, it's more expensive than spreading the cost over a larger group of people. In the 80s and 90s, I believe (could be wrong) there was healthcare reform to pool insurance groups together by the company they work for, by incetivizing them to offer insurance benefits to full time employees and paying for part of the cost. This incentivized companies to seek out less costly insurance and negotiate down the prices by leveraging the number of employees they had. The cost would be spread over their pool of employees. So this spread the cost of insurance over a group of people and maintained the private market for insurance. This was something of a compromise. However, this left out unemployed, part time employed, self employed and people that may be too old or sick to work but to young for Medicare and perhaps too well off for medicaid. This left a gap of uninsured. But these people. Don't just stop getting sick or injured. They still went to hospitals and doctors still had to treat them. But of course these people couldn't pay for treatment. This meant doctors and hospitals would have to raise their prices to compensate for the uninsured they'd have to inevitably serve. This meant more cost for insurance companies who'd spread the cost down to the employees that paid into it. So we have a breakdown. Many democrats were advocating for a government option of insurance and others a single payer system spread over the entire population. Republicans opposed this idea, fearing this would raise taxes, cause a breakdown in beuracracy and force insurance on those who didn't want it. So they actually formulated a plan that formed customized markets for people that weren't covered to buy into. In one way or another they'd be required to buy insurance from a selection of companies. This would be a pool of people to spread the cost of insurance and try to lower cost. If everyone got insured, doctors should lower prices. Lowering costs for everyone. Eventually, centrist democrats usurped this plan and combined it with the possibility of a government option to further lower costs. They also wanted to institute regulations to require insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions, lower cost of insurance for women, and allow children to stay under their parents insurance longer. This was because the parents were likely insured by employers and their adult kids may be in college. With the election of Obama, however, agreeing with anything he offered became politically untenable for Republicans. They vowed to oppose everything he offered in legislation. Further, they didn't want him to get the political points of 'fixing' healthcare. Lastly they had decently principled concerns about raising taxes to pay for extra costs, forcing people to be insured, and some of the mandates and regulations like covering pre-existing conditions and adult children. Democrats attempted to compromise by throwing out the possibility of single payer or a government option. Still, Republicans didn't bend. Eventually, democrats resorted to legislative tactics to get around the Republicans and pass it without their help. Here's where the problems came up. Because of all the wheeling and dealing and accommodating everyone's interest in Congress, there are some flaws to what Obama passed. Still, not everyone is insured, so the cost didn't lower as much as it could. Some of the offered plans were less desirable them plans found in full time employment options. Some insurance companies started backing out of these public markets because it wasn't profitable enough for them. And most importantly cost didn't come down. Because not everyone is insured, the costs of drugs and treatment didn't lower, not enough people are employed, employee options became less desirable as companies seeked cut costs and lastly insurance companies still have a profit incentive to cut costs and still didn't have more competiton to lower costs. Republicans tried to completely blame the flaws on the regulations and taxes instituted on the plan. When they got in office they essentially offered a plan that would revert us back to before Obamacare. Nothing to make sure everyone got insurance, no competiton for insurance companies, less requirements for the types of coverage insurances companies had to offer to encourage them to get back into the markets. Yet, this wasn't conservative enough for right wing republicans and it was completely unraveling Obamacare so democrats refused to be involved. Now you're seeing more liberal democrats revert back to the original call for single payer health care to allow everyone to be insured and spread the cost over the entire population. Also their would be no profit incentive and you'd pay through taxes. So the less you make, the less you pay. Republicans oppose this because they don't want to be taxed to pay for those who can't pay and they are distrustful of a government run system.",
"Fundamentally, Republicans don't want government providing health care; they want people to take responsibility for their own health. Democrats don't want anyone to go without health care, which means they want government to provide it, or make sure it's provided. Up here in Canada, we have trouble understanding the first point of view.",
"It's complicated. It comes down to 2 issues. First is that the Republicans were out of power and decided to simply oppose everything Obama endorsed. Healthcare was the major first term Obama initiative and therefore the Republicans strongly opposed it. That opposition was so strong that they talked about it ALL THE TIME to the point where we were just before the election. The second issue is a little more complex. One of the fundamental differences between the Democrats and the Republicans is how they think of the role of government. Democrats think the government has a responsibility to care for people. Republicans think people should care for themselves and the role of government is to get out of the way. This can be seen in their policies. It's not that Republicans don't like poor people. They think the best way to help them is to get them working and the best way to do that is to make it really shitty to be poor and really easy for employers to hire them. So Republican policies tend to favor businesses and disfavor giving money or aid to the poor. How this relates to Obamacare is simple. Republicans do not think the government should be guaranteeing people healthcare. Democrats not only think that the government should guarantee it, but also that government should pay for it if people can't.",
"If you mean the politicians, it is because of stupid political BS. If you mean the common man, all social welfare issues come down to two simple question. Should the wealthy be required to provide for the poor? How much control should the government have over individual lives? The answers, of course, vary from person to person. But in broad general strokes, republicans think \"no\" and \"very little\" while democrats think \"yes\" and \"whatever it needs to provide better lives\".",
"Fair warning, most of the answers you're going to get on reddit are from a very liberal audience.",
"Republicans want to pay low taxes, and they are willing to have government provide few services if they get to lower their taxes. Democrats want government to provide valuable services, so people will be OK with paying higher taxes. Healthcare is very expensive and the rate if increase in healthcare costs is much higher than inflation. Republicans don't want government to start giving way free, universal healthcare because they worry about how much it will cost in the future. Democrats want people to like government and give it more control and healthcare seems like a good reward to offer. There is no middle ground between these two opinions. Public opinion is also mixed. People like to get stuff paid for with other people's tax money. The sickest 5% (who use 75% of healthcare spending) seem like nice folks in a randomly unfortunate situation. However, taxpayers can do the math and the 4 healthcare programs the Government already runs aren't all great.",
"Money. Healthcare and Pharmaceutical lobbyists bribe corrupt politicians to ensure these industries maintain or grow their profits. Your elected politicians do not represent you, but rather represent whoever is paying them that sweet bribe money.",
"The real reason is money and propaganda. The main disagreements are: 1) Government vs. free market efficiency in providing healthcare (it's more expensive) 2) Individual rights vs. tax payers paying for other people (it's not fair) 3) Capitalism vs. Socialism ideology (socialism is bad) For the first issue, people blame rising health care costs on Obamacare. It's not true - health care costs were increasing at the same rate or faster before the ACA. But the propaganda networks have been saying it for so long, and people only remember that before it their bills were lower, so they don't realize that the _rate_ of increase hasn't changed. Since it was named the \"Affordable Care Act\" this really angered people, because what's the point if it's not really affordable? So this is a branding problem which opened up a weak point for propaganda attacks. On the second issue, independence and resistance to tax-payer funded social programs goes pretty far back in US history. It probably comes from the fact that the early settlers were pretty independent. In the 30's people realized that social safety nets could really help people, but because they required more taxes a lot of powerful people resisted the idea. They started propaganda campaigns that continue today - every time you hear \"socialism doesn't work\" or \"taxes are theft,\" that's where it comes from. The real deal is that taxes of some form are necessary, and the question is: how much and what do we spend it on? The people who fund these propaganda campaigns are more than happy to take your tax money if it goes in their pocket. They just don't want to spend it on your healthcare. The third issue is what really divides people and turns the conversation completely away from facts and reason and into emotional territory. It's also a direct result of propaganda campaigns from the 60's. Our current insurance system, where most people get insurance through work, was created in the 40's because of WWII era wage controls. Companies needed a way to differentiate themselves when hiring, but they couldn't pay more, so they would offer health insurance instead. This worked for a while, but during the 50's and 60's government health care programs started showing up in other countries, and they were working, so people in the US were interested. There was a huge push back from the medical and insurance industries, and they managed to convince a majority of Americans that it was bad by labeling it \"socialized healthcare\" and comparing it to communism. The USSR and China were under oppressive authoritarian regimes and had command economies, and so by calling it \"socialized healthcare\" they were able to associate it in people's minds with authoritarianism and centrally-planned economies. Neither of those things \"work\" and are definitely against American values, but because people aren't very good at understanding details, they became emotionally associated with the idea of healthcare. So today, when you hear people talking about \"socialized medicine,\" that's where it comes from. A marketing/propaganda campaign that started in the 60's and that has a goal of getting you to not think rationally and to instead imagine Soviet-era conditions in the US. The reality is that lots of countries (in fact, pretty much every other developed nation) has some form of \"socialized medicine,\" and the most effective and efficient ones use a combination of government funding and free-market consumer choice. That way no one has to worry about going broke or dying, or living in chronic pain because they can't afford treatment, but you still get consumer choice and free-market distribution according to need.",
"To my knowledge liberals think health care is a born right that every citizen deserves to have regardless of income. Conservatives think that universal healthcare provided to all by the federal gov is subpar quality and think that purchasing your own private insurance is the best way",
"It's ELI5, not explain the concept so here it goes: Democrats think the government should provide healthcare for all people Republicans do not.",
"Insurance companies and drug dealers. Even the democrats are afraid to go up against them. That's why Obama care was so weird. Yea, it's way better than nothing but it's not really a long term solution that makes any sense. They could had put everybody on medicare and jacked up the tax rate and been done with all the bullshit years ago.",
"People that make a lot of money from the healthcare industry want to continue doing so. This is partially achieved by ensuring the current legislative environment remains the same.",
"Greed. The Republican party generally, but not exclusively, attracts people who don't care about anyone but themselves, and their immediate family and friends. They can't stand the thought of someone they don't know benefiting from \"Their Money.\" But they sure as shit don't mind using the roads, police, firefighters, public libraries, public schools, etc., that other people helped by for through taxes. Most are greedy, selfish, and more than a little sociopathic. Democrats are slightly less worse, but not by much. Two sides of same coin."
],
"score": [
734,
80,
34,
32,
28,
16,
8,
7,
5,
4,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
63t0c0 | Queen Victoria ruled over one of the most powerful empires in history for almost a century. So why did it take until 1918 for women to be considered politically intelligent and allowed to vote? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfx2673",
"dfwqiuv",
"dfwqy5c",
"dfx5708",
"dfwpx2t",
"dfxc7lv",
"dfx9moh",
"dfx5jfo",
"dfwvl5h",
"dfxco68",
"dfx51cz",
"dfwq3ue",
"dfxf9ul",
"dfx2cky",
"dfxeyy6",
"dfx09rb",
"dfx0tbm",
"dfwykfm",
"dfx7d0r",
"dfx1ao5",
"dfx6uge",
"dfx36pe",
"dfx6i5j",
"dfwz4j3",
"dfx39il",
"dfy3o61",
"dfx95se",
"dfxzcgw",
"dfxbqb8",
"dfxj1rt",
"dfxxm9a"
],
"text": [
"Generally speaking, the idea that EVERYONE should vote is extremely new. Today, we think of voting restrictions as being intended as a way of making sure certain parts of society didn't get a say out of spite or elitism, but in reality, it was much more an attempt to solve a problem that we still suffer from today: Most people don't really know what they're voting for. By restricting voting to landowners, the idea was that voters would not only be more likely to have the education necessary to understand what their vote meant, but also had a vested interest in the long term success of the nation (or state, or county, or whatever). The idea was that if you owned property in the place you were voting, you would vote for things that would lead to the success of the place as a whole, so the value of your land would go up, your farm would succeed, etc. If you were just some guy working odd jobs, you were more likely to vote for the guy who offered you free food and money until the whole economy tanked, then up and leave when it went south. This isn't as wrongheaded as it may seem at first blush. A decade ago, many South American countries elected very far left politicians who essentially took the position of \"We'll just give the poor people who voted for us free stuff\". Brazil's Lula, for example, was elected largely by uneducated or undereducated poor people, who he then pandered to by constantly giving them things for free. While he was extremely, extremely popular at the time, the end result was that he took Brazil from having overflowing coffers to being buried in debt, contributing massively to Brazil's current economic situation. Obviously, I don't mean that to say \"Only rich people should vote\". But allowing everyone to vote does have some trade offs. Anyway, to the point of the question, it wasn't until very recently that women were allowed to own land or get a very good education. So, in the context of the views of the time, not allowing women to vote actually made a great deal of sense. If you want to restrict voting to educated people with a vested interest in the long term success of the area (in this context, landholders), then women of the time genuinely rarely met the requirements. Ultimately, women not having the right to vote until the 20th century wasn't necessarily always specifically sexist in and of itself, but rather the result of other forms of sexism. The whole thing is fairly convoluted when you get into it. Edit: A word Edit 2: Just wanted to clarify a couple things. Apologies for the really long edit, but numerous people have responded to me making basically the same couple points, so I figured I'd address them here instead of just saying the same thing over and over individually. First, Regarding former Brazilian President Lula, I certainly don't believe he was all bad. The poor in Brazil have it extremely bad, and Lula's predecessor Cardoso probably focused too much on long-term economic growth and big picture, and not enough on helping the people here and now. As can be seen in the American midwest, rustbelt, and inner cities, ignoring people who need help now in favor of making it better for everyone isn't a perfect plan. However, Cardoso did manage to create an economically stable state, which set Lula up a good situation for Lula to implement much-needed reforms. However, he tried to do too much too fast. Brazil's economy was booming, and he dove head first into creating tons of assistance programs, pensions, etc., which helped millions of people. Unfortunately, this was all contingent on Brazil's economic boom continuing. When commodity prices started dropping and oil started bottoming out, Brazil's money well dried up, but government spending didn't diminish. The aid and reform programs continued on, but now without any way to fund it. Rousseff probably had time to stop it, but instead she burned everything to the ground. Now most of those people Lula temporarily helped are in as bad or worse situations than they were before. Ultimately, he broke a very simple economic rule for governments: Save during boom years, spend during bust years. Again, this isn't to say everything Lula did was bad. Helping the poor is something that Brazil needed for a long time, and still needs a great deal of. My point was, his electorate didn't want a better situation in 5, 10, or 15 years. They wanted a better situation right now, and he gave it to them. Now that's gone, because by giving them what they wanted when they wanted it, he created an unsustainable economic situation. Second, regarding the beliefs that I'm promoting restricting voting to rich landowners, I absolutely am not. I didn't address the issues with only landowners voting because that wasn't the point of my post. I was providing context, with a modern example, for the problem those voting restrictions were trying to solve, and the role they had in why women couldn't vote, as was the question asked by OP. The fact is, many people, regardless of economic class, gender, race, sexual orientation, or any other differentiation, probably don't make very good voting decisions. My personal opinion, since it's being assumed quite a bit, is that ideally, we WOULD restrict voting to qualified people. However, I've yet to learn about or think of any system of voter restriction that would prevent people who don't have the ability (for whatever reason) to vote responsibly and intelligently while allowing all the people who do. There are vast numbers of issues poor people face, for example, that wealthy and middle class people have absolutely no knowledge of, so obviously poor people DO need to be able to vote. As far as I see it, allowing everyone to vote creates fewer problems than restricting voting in a flawed way. Allowing everyone to vote is much like democracy itself: Extremely flawed and riddled with countless problems from beginning to end, but unfortunately the best form of government we've been able to come up with so far. I hope this all lends some clarity to what I'd intended to be a bit of context for an answer regarding why women couldn't vote for so long. Thanks for reading, if you've read this far. Edit 3: I thought I'd do a third edit here to say that my summary of Brazil's economic situation is EXTREMELY simplified. There's no possible way to thorough discuss the economy of an entire nation in a standard sized book, let alone a couple paragraphs on Reddit. Combine this with the facts that it's impossible to accurately gauge why and how an economic situation came to be until at least several decades later and that I am not, and would never pretend to be, an expert on Brazilian economics (although I've done my share of research into it, and have discussed it with a Brazilian economist whose views and opinions I regard extremely highly), and you're going to get a cursory summary that doesn't take into account nearly all the minor details. Lula had, and continues to have, millions of very intelligent, well-read supporters. I happen to disagree with them, no disrespect intended. Edit 4: I'm never sure if it's appropriate to make an edit when someone gives you gold, but I didn't do it the one other time someone was so generous and I felt like a giant ungrateful dick. Thank you for for the gold, anonymous gilder, sincerely! Also, if whoever gilded that other post reads this, thank you belatedly.",
"There was a great response to why Queen Victoria didn't like feminists over at /r/askhistorians, which you can find [here]( URL_0 ). It's worth reading the whole comment, but the tl;dr is that Queen Victoria maintained a lot of her power and influence by maintaining a public image of her as a proper lady. She emphasized her motherhood (mother to princes, mother to an empire, etc.) and family life to keep her firmly in the mainstream and feminism was a threat to the power of that image. That's not a direct response to why it took until 1918 for women to be able to vote, but it at least shows why Queen Victoria wouldn't have been helping feminism move forward. As for why 1918 and not a little earlier or later, the main reason was WW1. A lot of men were fighting on the front and women filled in for their jobs at home. As a result, women became seen as more capable. Right after the war, Parliament passed a voting law that got rid of a lot of previous requirements for men (only about 60% of males over 21 could vote prior to 1918 and many men returning from the war did not meet the requirements, which was not politically popular) and it gave some women the right to vote (over 30, with some property and education requirements). The full right for women to vote came in 1928. There's a lot more history to the suffrage movement in the UK that lead up to the passage of those bills, but that's probably best saved for another post. Edit: We get it guys - poor men and men of color have historically been disenfranchised too, but that doesn't really have much to do with the question of why no women were allowed to vote in the UK when its ruler was female.",
"You've got to remember the changes in 1918 weren't just about female suffrage. Prior to the changes men had to be home owners and over the age of 21 before they had the right to vote. That at the time meant somewhere around 40% of the male population was also ineligible to vote. Men had returned from war to a parliament that hadn't been voted on in 10 years and a lot of the people returning who had fought and watched their friends die, were denied the right to vote. As you can imagine it lead to a lot of tension within the UK and people were demanding political change. Womens suffrage mirrored a lot of issues for people returning from war so it also gained a lot more public support. It's easy to get angry about something when you're already angry so it became a very important subject as well.",
"Interestingly, I read a book about political philosophy from I believe the 1840s if I remember right, and the author brought up the subject of women voting. He said that intellectually he couldn't think of a reason why women should not vote, but that the man was head of the household and that he wouldn't want to introduce strife over voting between a married couple. He entertained the thought then that unmarried women might be allowed to vote, but said that that would benefit only widows and young unmarried women, and that he would not wish to encourage the latter to remain unmarried. Therefore, he said he was against expanding the franchise to women. You will find that many 19th century (and earlier) arguments around giving various rights to women often didn't center around their intellectual abilities, but around gender and household roles. Sure, you find plenty of male authors of the time period who we would now label as misogynistic (believing women were natural inferiors, etc) but that wasn't necessarily a given.",
"Your average illiterate layperson in the pre-industrial world wasn't really comparable to European royalty. Keep in mind that before 1828 you needed to own land to vote in the US, the founders didn't really want the uneducated masses of either gender voting. By 1918 women had begun to enter the workforce and academia in significant numbers, and it was increasingly difficult to cook up reasons why they were incapable of informed voting.",
"One of the 'arguments against' (or reasons why it wasn't happening) I had read up on was that nobody could really comprehend how a married couple (2 becoming 1 unit) would have two different votes. Think of it as '1 vote for 1 unit'. So why double the paperwork for no point. Husbands were seen as being responsible for the doing of the task. Indeed, to mount a horse or strap on boots regardless of weather and go do 'their vote'. The household vote. I'm going a bit by fading memory but a basic 'argument against' related to that first one was 'anti-elitist' and worried about the wealthy upper-classes taking over. So they assume a couple will be voting the same. Now, (re: husbands obligation to carry out physical task) and now you've doubled the possible votes. However, this is highly inconvenient to households of lesser means. poor to middle-class homes where the mother and grandmother simply cannot easily travel out on windy rainy nights days and leave children behind (or take them). .... however ..... this was NOT as much the practical issue for wealthy upper-classes who had maids and nannies and the ability to take covered coaches and escorts and stay in hotels if need be etc. so what they feared was basically the middle-poor folks can still only send the husband to cast the vote on behalf of the couple. The 1 vote for the 1 household/couple but the wealthy could basically double their votes with easy access and practical ability. There was also an 'argument against' or opposition from what were the 'social liberals' of the days in the Western democracies as women were, at that time, considered the stricter religious morally superior of the sexes. In one book I was reading about a US debate it was almost hilarious how the strictest opponents to women voting were funded by and made of: The local saloon owners, the local whorehouse owners/staff/regulars, the local casino, the local boxing organizers. Basically, they were well certain that if wives (their 'enemies' if you will) get the vote then they'd instantly start making alcohol/prostitutes/gambling/sports etc illegal overnight. I think there was another issue about war or wartime or post-war but something to the effect of consequences if and when significant numbers of men were at war and/or killed in wars but i forgot what the deal was on it. Today we probably can't see these things anymore. People don't become married at 18 as much. People today can't believe a married couple (married... merged together) means merged/married together into one unit. Its normal to think they'd work to different political goals. That in the olde days people really had to brave outdoor weather, the crowds and dangers to go vote. Not just have the wife stop somewhere on a drive home and keep the babysitter for an extra hour at the most inconvenience. Or that women and in particular the 'women's movement' used to be an extreme right-wing Christian conservative movement.",
"Its important to note that Queen Victoria did *not* rule, but rather reigned. She was a figurehead not at all unlike the current royal family in the name of which a popularly elected Parliament forms a government. The remainder of the eligible aristocracy can participate in politics in the Upper Chamber of Parliament (the House of Lords), but the Monarch is relegated to advising the Prime Minister as to the policy the Monarch prefers. Although the opinions and views of the Monarch are influential, the Monarchs themselves cannot implement any policy either foreign, domestic or imperial/commonwealth. The Monarch does retain the power of Royal Assent (which is sort of a veto in reverse, rather than rejecting legislation the Monarch refuses to agree to it), but it is almost never withheld in contemporary UK politics out of respect for the democratic process necessary to pass a bill through both chambers successfully. I realize this doesn't answer your question, but despite being the titular Empress of India, Queen Victoria had almost no say in the practical administration of its government (she never even visited India) outside advising the PM who could - if he chose - pass that advise on to the foreign office or the Governor/Viceroy of India.",
"Some women attempt to gain power and influence through the idea that they \"aren't like other women.\" Similar to men posting images of their wives playing video games on Reddit because \"look at how cool and special my wife is because she plays video games and is so different from other girls.\" And that's why you have girls leading conversations with men like, \"I don't get along with girls\" or \"I'm not like other girls.\" It's a way to distance yourself from the notion that women are inferior/stupid/crazy/less capable. Imagine if she had sided with feminist movements during that time. She needed to distance herself from them or else put her power in jeopardy. Women have internalized all of those negative stereotypes about our gender and sometimes it shows. Or sometimes it feels like the only way we can succeed is if we prove we aren't like \"them.\" It's easier to convince someone that you as an individual may be different than they originally thought than it is to convince an entire population that women as an entire gender are different that they thought. Really hoping this makes sense. Edit: just cuz I feel like I didn't make it clear that what I was trying to say was that patriarchal ideals can put women in a position where they feel like the only solution is to dissociate from feminism and femininity because of the misconception that women as a whole are inferior, etc. I do not think all women are the same. I'm a woman who knows many women and as such I am aware we are all different. I was talking about the perceived sameness of women. Hopefully that clears it up.",
"TellahTheSage puts it pretty well. Queen Victoria was stongly against feminist movements, and in fact became the target of some movements instead of their idol. She was the grand mother of Europe, a true and proper lady instilling her own values of etiquette and the western household centered around a relationship between the working man and housewife alongside the rise of the middle class. Feminism was a threat to this. Many countries gave increased rights to women as a result of World War I. The conflict sapped manpower from the home front, and women began taking up their husband's places in factories and other jobs. This hence led to eventual legislation that increased the rights and roles of women not only out of a growing call for voting rights, but also out of necessity as the Great Powers slowly bled eachother's economies to death.",
"There was an excellent Radiolab episode called [One Vote]( URL_0 ) in which they examined the very last hours before women got the constitutional right to vote. A lot of the lobbying against it was being done by *women*, and it wasn't on the premise that women weren't politically savvy or intelligent enough to vote responsibly. They were against it because they didn't want *single* women, especially single mothers, to have a voting stake. The idea was to keep the vote with the \"responsible\" people, and \"responsible\" women were already well represented by their husbands, who gave a political voice to the entire family.",
"Britain has a constitutional monarchy, and has had one since the glorious revolution which established the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Queen Victoria was mostly a figurehead and a non politcal head of state, which in short means she had no actual politcal power. The real power lay in Parliament, and the Prime Minister (who was still considered \"primus inter pares\" or first among equals), who could pass any law and not have it overturned by any higher power. Additionally, the PM and his cabinet of Ministers could use the royal prerogative to exercise power on BEHALF of the monarch. So even though it was a time when the Queen had slightly more power than she does today, it would have caused a contitutional crisis for Queen Victoria to express strong views on the ruling of the country due to the principles of Parliamentary government and Constitutional monarchy. As a result, she was not actually the leader of the British empire. TL;DR- Queen Victoria didn't actually have the right kind of power",
"Your comparing the Average Joe to a women who supposedly had the divine right to rule England. Also the British Monarchy is traditionally one one of the most neutered monarchies in Europe, Parliament makes many of the big choices. Now I'm not saying women have no right go equality, but at the time Victorian ers men saw no reason to give them the vote due to past prejudices.",
"The Oprah Winfrey of her day, [Sarah Josepha Hale]( URL_0 ) was not in favor of universal suffrage. She was an extraordinarily influential tastemaker in the 1800s, and her opinion carried a lot of weight. Comparing her to Oprah doesn't really do her justice; if Oprah had the only talk show on TV, that would be a closer comparison. She more or less invented the modern Thanksgiving holiday, was an accomplished author, advised Abraham Lincoln, and was the editor of Godey's Ladies Book for 40 years. Godey's Ladies Book was the most widely circulated journal in the United States for much of its existence, and through it Hale exerted influence on literature, fashion, architecture, music, and virtually all aspects of American society, including political thought. She held up Queen Victoria as the very model of a proper woman, and considered exercising the franchise directly to be too corrupting of an influence on women, who she thought should serve as the moral compass of the family and the nation. She was easily one of the most influential women of the 19th century. It's a real shame that she gets short shrift in many women's studies books and courses because of her (now) unpopular stance on women's suffrage.",
"Who suggested to you that the right to vote is related to intelligence. An adult bordering on mentally challenged can vote. An educated and gifted seventeen year old cannot. People get the right to vote when they collectively wield enough power to demand it. For women this happened in 1918 or so. For teenagers it still hasn't happened. In any case, the people in power allow citizens to vote once it becomes clear that those citizens have enough power that it is easier for those in power to share some of it than to risk losing it all in a revolution. Once you're in a position to disrupt or replace the system, you're allowed to be part of it.",
"As others have noted, the right to vote itself was still relatively new when women got the vote in West. Throughout the West (i.e. Western Europe, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) over a period of about 150 years, the right to vote was extended to landowning men, then all white men, then all men, then all men and women. Suffrage came in fits and starts and was uneven throughout the process. For example, landowning women could vote in New Jersey until 1807, then lost the right for 113 years, then got it back again, while women in Wyoming were granted the vote as early as 1869, 51 years before the rest of the country. The *reasons* for granting and denying suffrage varied greatly. For example, Wyoming didn't give women the vote because of a belief in gender equality -- they did it because the state was unknown, desperately needed new settlers, and there were a staggering 6 men for every 1 woman, so granting women the vote seemed like a good way to attract women, especially single women, to move to Wyoming. Likewise, the reasons people were opposed to women's suffrage varied quite a bit. While its popular to believe that women were seen as unintelligent, this isn't really the case -- practically everyone recognized that women could be just as intelligent as men, and absolutely everyone understood that stupid men voted all the time. Many people were concerned that granting women the vote would only increase the voting power of married men, as they would instruct their wives how to vote, and being dutiful wives, they would then vote as their husbands instructed -- essentially giving married men two votes! Some people were deeply concerned about *what* women would vote for. The Temperance Movement was closely allied with the Women's Suffrage movement, and few people would have been surprised when women's suffrage was followed immediately by Prohibition in America as women voted in a wave of Temperance candidates. Others -- *conservatives* -- were concerned that women would just generally vote for more liberal, less conservative governments, and opposed suffrage out of political expediency. In America, the vote had been extended to all men in large part because all men could be drafted for war, which lead to a belief that the right to vote *came from* the duty to fight. Many people, *especially women*, were opposed to women's suffrage because of the fear that it would lead to women being drafted and forced to serve. Along the same lines, many people thought it was unfair that women would be able to vote to send men to war without having to face any risks themselves. The most important thing to understand is that there were really only two generations of women in the West who couldn't vote while men could, and the number of women who were born in a time when all men could vote and they could not, and also died before they could vote themselves, is a *very* tiny cohort in the grand scheme of things.",
"She didn't really rule it. By that point in history the British monarchy was mostly symbolic, as it is today. The Empire was run by Parliament and the Prime Minister. The British Bill of Rights gave most legislative and taxing powers to parliament in [1689]( URL_0 ).",
"Queen Vic took over in 1837 as Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Ireland, 5 years prior the Great Reform Act (a mostly good Act) 1832 was passed. This Act of Parliament took women off the ballot for the first time since 1371 (when the Commons Opened). However among many women voting wasn't right or propper. Even the some suffragets were restrictive in which women they thought should get the vote.",
"People crave power and will do next to anything to keep it - so when people start to want to distribute things (like rights) more equally - they feel their power is threatened and make up all sorts of nonsense reasons why it should not be let go (i.e. females are inferior - or people x are inferior). Dear old QV was a woman but she ruled over an Empire that was run entirely by men - for these men having a female monarch is one thing - as it doesn't involved any substantial change to the power structure; Sharing power with their wives however - is quite another matter. TL;DR Ignore the surface rational given - it is always about people wanting to keep in power.",
"In 1867, Lily Maxwell voted in a by-election in Manchester where regulations granted the right to all ratepayers, but overlooked the need to except women. Several more female property owners in Manchester followed suit, but the following year the loophole was plugged, and women’s suffrage was declared illegal.",
"The recent Netflix series about QEII provides a clue. In the show, you see the young Elizabeth learning constitutional scholar Walter Bagehot's distinction between \"the dignified\" (symbolic) role, and \"the efficient\" (practical) role. Because the queen's role was to be majestic and dignified (and ultimately symbolic), it didn't matter that she was a woman. Indeed, it worked to her advantage because she could float above the details. But the messy, complicated business of politics? All well and good to leave to men. They like that stuff.",
"Although Victoria was the Queen, she had very little power. Since the Glorious Revolution that brought King William and Queen Mary to power in 1688, England has been a constitutional monarchy. This means that the sovereign had very little power compared to parliament. Victoria tried to influence politics early in her reign but was largely pushed back on by the ruling government. Women's role in western society was largely seen as a household role. Women were to be mothers and raise the children, before anything else. This all changed during the industrial revolutions, when women started to take working roles. They became more and more independent in these roles. The process for suffrage was also gradual. Wyoming actually gave women the right to vote in 1869, and other western states would soon follow. By 1918 women were given the right to vote nationwide in the US.",
"Queen Isabella of Spain was the most powerful monarch of the World after Columbus discovered America (and a very powerful one before). This was 500 years ago.",
"Queen Victoria didn't rule for almost a century. She reigned for 64 years. She was only alive she almost a century.",
"Queen Victoria believed that woman already had more power than men and she didn't want to see a mans role as protector and provider removed from the equation of economics. She saw that by empowering women it would weaken the government through emotional based decision making and all reason would eventually be eliminated.",
"It wasn't about intelligence so much as political responsibility. Voting was seen as an exercise of political power only slightly less than holding office. The requirement to be a man, 21 years of age, and an owner of property was meant to insure that all voters were responsible members of the community. This was actually a relaxation of earlier standards when only the nobility had a vote. Eventually the standards were relaxed farther and farther until today when you don't even need to be a citizen. I know you are supposed to be but when are the laws enforced?",
"Bit late but just to clarify, Victoria was only Queen out of default. Still now, you can only be Queen when there are no other direct male heirs. For example, Henry VIII had three children: Mary I, Elizabeth I and Edward VI. Despite being the youngest, when Henry died Ed was made king (first male heir). When he died at 18 with no heirs of his own, the crown was reluctantly passed to Mary. Despite her fake pregnancy, Mary also died without any heirs so the throne went to Elizabeth etc. Since William the Conquerer we have had 41 monarchs, and only 6 have been females. So even though we may have had our Victorian period ruled over us by a woman, this has no bearing whatsoever to passing the vote.",
"Victoria actually held little power. Her role was to maintain order and propriety. In many ways this division reflected the division of the sexes held by the Victorians. A Lady's place was to organize the houshold staff and mantain the propriety of the family. Victoria as head of governemnt, a role that featured lots of dinner parties and such, filled that roll. She was the matriarch of the country while the Prime Minister served as it's patriarch. Even her nominal power over government supported the role of false subservience to women the Victorians used as an excuse to control women, such as \"women and children first.\" It was the job of men to see to the functioning of the country and the nasty business that entailed. Women, including the Queen were to take care of the household and family image.",
"Unrelated fun fact: In Victorian times, British society was still quite strict and patriarchal. In the Australian colonization effort, native aborigines were rounded down and concentrated into camps for many reasons (one was to steal land, for example, but there were also other, slightly better, reasons, i.e., conversion and education). In those camps, there were numerous social and education programs. However, while males were resisting and keeping to their hunting-gathering tradition, females took this opportunity, converted more often and learned various small crafts, in fact, became more economically independent. So while among males, alcoholism was rampart, females became \"good christians\" with added better political and economical independence. Additionally, whenever natives got something from British people, i.e., food ratios, clothes and so on, it was from \"Queen Victoria\". So what does this means? This further increased status of women in aboriginal society in those camps. So the paradoxical effect was that strongly patriarchal british society turned formerly (mostly) strongly patriarchal aboriginal society into somewhat matriarchal one.",
"One thing to keep in mind is that the concept of one person = one vote wasn't always how representation was thought of. I'm going to be grossly simplifying here (sorry historians), but voting used to be restricted to landowners, or more specifically to the head of a landowning household. Because of succession laws which favored men over women, *de facto* this meant that men almost always were the ones to vote, but we do have records of women voting in England when they were the primary heir to the family estate. Moving forward we get the idea of giving all men the vote, which can be seen as another way of giving all households the vote, not just wealthy land owners. During this time the concept of voting moved away from households and to individuals, at which point giving women the vote logically follows. This is just one aspect of the process of women's sufferage and other posters point out additional reasons why it took so long.",
"There are many reason why women did not secure the vote. Just because Queen Victoria was female, did not give automatic right for women to vote. For one thing she was not voted to the crown. She inherited the throne at 18 years old after her father died. The crown would have gone to the male members of the surviving family, but they also died. She was the only surviving member of her family to which the crown could have passed. In gaining the throne, she also gained the title of defender of the faith (of the Church of England), which was a very male organisation. The rights of women would not have been her concern, particularly as she held traditional views about the roles of men and women and she opposed women voting. Later her daughters took a different view. Others in this thread have point out the world war 1 was a turning point, largely because men were away, and women were taking up previous masculine roles. And if women could do the jobs of men, then they could cast a vote as men did also.",
"Simple. She was not ruling as a woman, she was ruling as a carrier of divine blood. Her ruling was not with her as a woman, it was due to her being a carrier of royal blood, which makes it excessively hard to sudeenly go, \"But she's a girl\", when before you go, \"Those with royal blood are fit to rule. \" Strangely, you see that again and again. Women allways rose to the top as rulers in systems that went full on \"divine blood\", and they never made a big deal about it. They did not need to, they were seen as something special. Plus, they just needed to be five degrees more chill then their male counterparts. Look at queen victorias rule. She used being female as an unspoken extra. So, in totality, going, \"we had women royality, why didn't they get the right to vote\", you can answer that, \"we had royality that just happened to be female\". As it used to be put back in the day: \"Men payed for their right to vote in verdun and flanders. Women got their right to vote because they helped send them there. \""
],
"score": [
6427,
5960,
488,
217,
166,
150,
82,
52,
49,
36,
25,
19,
16,
15,
14,
10,
10,
8,
7,
6,
5,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5qvm8e/was_queen_victoria_reacting_to_a_specific_group/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.radiolab.org/story/one-vote/"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Josepha_Hale"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
63tl9x | The Senate "nuclear option" today. What this mean? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfx0xbj",
"dfwyh6f",
"dfwv2i7"
],
"text": [
"You're 8 years old at a kids party with 99 other 8 yro children and a decision has to be made about what kinds of games, boy games or girl games, everyone must play. While parties usually have a near even mix of boys and girls, some parties have more boys than girls, while others have more girls than boys. This sometimes leads to cases where 51 boys force 49 girls to play \"War\" and others where 51 girls force 49 boys to play \"Tea Party\". So your community has a party rule that 60 children at the party must agree on the game, which causes more mutually acceptable games like \"Tag\" to be picked a lot more often. Whichever group has the majority of members has the ability to change the party rules. Changing this particular rule that functionally requires at least some of the opposite group to agree on the game choice is called the \"nuclear option\" because, like a nuclear bomb you cannot beat it. Whenever there are 51 boys at the party the game is going to be \"War\" and whenever there are 51 girls the game will be \"Tea Party\". This means no more \"Tag\", or \"Red Rover\", or other compromise games. /u/Sand_Trout has an excellent reply using a more formal terminology [here in the thread]( URL_0 )",
"In addition to what's been said, because the Democrats employed the nuclear option previously to confirm Obama's cabinet nominations, this is kinda the last filibuster left in place. They took the chance because they were absolutely positive a Democrat would win in 2016. They didn't, though, and now the Democrats find themselves in a position (of their own making) to lose the legislative filibuster 4 months into Trump's term.",
"Current System: The Senate is made up of 100 members. They debate about the judge nominated for the Supreme Court until 60 of them agree that it's time to vote. Nuclear Option: If invoked, only 51 senators need to agree it's time to vote in order to force debate to end and voting to begin. Immediate Relevance: Democrats don't want a vote on the current Supreme Court nominee because it looks like he will probably be approved if a vote occurs. Under the current system, they can prevent the vote from occurring."
],
"score": [
13,
5,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/63tl9x/eli5the_senate_nuclear_option_today_what_this_mean/dfwurgr/"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
63ts1d | How is the SCOTUS nomination rule change easier than confirmation? | Couldn't they just change the rule to a simple majority, confirm the nominee, then change the rule back? Could they do this for everything that requires a supermajority? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfwwznk"
],
"text": [
"> How is the SCOTUS nomination rule change easier than confirmation? The constitution includes a line (in Article I, Section 5): > Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings When the constitution grants something, a rule by a lower body can't change it. So, that line has been interpreted by the [Supreme Court]( URL_0 ) to mean that a majority vote of a quorum of Senators can conduct business including changing its rules (Since the constitution is higher than the Senate, the constitutional rule overrides Senate rules that would oppose it). > Couldn't they just change the rule to a simple majority, confirm the nominee, then change the rule back? They could, but there's not really a point to it, since the next time the topic comes up, either you'll want to do it again, or the other side will just use your precedent (and the same legal logic) to change the rules themselves. > Could they do this for everything that requires a supermajority? Not everything, certain supermajorities are mandated by the constitution. So for example, the Senate can't change the 2/3's requirement for impeachment or overriding a presidential veto (because those aren't required by Senate rules, they're Constitutional rules). While they could change the rules for a vote for cloture on legislation, both sides like that rule, so it's unlikely they would even have a majority in favor of a change."
],
"score": [
17
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/144/1.html"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
63u1jy | Drug Tests given by your Employer or a Requirement for certain jobs | I guess I am curious about the practice and it's application. Is the assumption that if you do illegal drugs, then you are not trustworthy? Or that you would be coming to work under the influence? Are they testing for both Prescription and non-prescription? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfwz85z"
],
"text": [
"Many times, it's tied to company insurance. Companies that agree to drug test new employees and in some cases, routine random drug tests, can lead to lower costs on health insurance plans. If you're a company that is partly covering some employee health insurance for ~1,000 employees, you would look for ways to drop the price. The logic works out to this: 1. People who use drugs illegally are not responsible/don't follow rules/potentially a hazard. 2. If we hire them, what's to stop them from using drugs at work? 3. If they use drugs at work, they could injure/kill someone. 4. This death is the fault of the company since they hired the druggie. 5. The company is exposed to lawsuits and rising insurance prices. 6. Company goes under. While this is a slippery slope fallacy, it works to highlight the dangers of working in certain industries. Companies want to stay safe and provide employee incentives, they can kill two birds with one stone through employee drug testing. Personally, companies can keep their fucking insurance as long as they stay out of my personal life. The thing is, drug testing doesn't do much if someone with half a brain can figure out a few basic things. I've personally have not been the cleanest for some past tests and I've met meth addicts that can cheat the system. There are whole industries that devoted to undermining of employee and court ordered drug tests."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
63u3s4 | How do BBQ restaurants work? | A few years ago I bought a Traeger smoking grill and I love to make my own BBQ. I know from experience that pork shoulders and briskets take at least 12 hours to cook, while ribs take 3-6 hours depending on whether you're cooking baby backs or spare ribs. All of this depends on what temperature you cook at (I prefer 225 myself). My question is how do they serve hot and fresh food? Most restaurants cook to order. Do they have someone cooking at least 12 hours in advance of the lunch hours? Then what about dinner service? Do they serve the same meat at dinner as they did at lunch? Is it possible that they would cook some meat until they're 90% done and finish it when an order is placed? Smoked chicken is great but leaves the skin unappetizing, unless you finish it with higher heat. How does a restaurant deal with that? When something like brisket is done, how do they keep it warm without drying it out? How do they plan for how much meat to cook? I realize that running out of something comes with the territory when your food is great. I have seen some shows that follow mom and pop shops around and that has answered some of my questions. I am more interested in larger restaurants or chains like Bandanas or Famous Dave's. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfwyx1j",
"dfwzl0n",
"dfwzpyb"
],
"text": [
"> Is it possible that they would cook some meat until they're 90% done and finish it when an order is placed? Yes. This is called par cooking. They also cook stuff overnight. Big chains will have more pre-cooked stuff that is just finished on site.",
"Many BBQ joints now employ gas or electric smokers that can be set at the end of the night and then left running overnight. Some just start super early and that's why many are only open for lunch... they may get in at 3am to smoke the meat, serve from 11-1 and that's end of day (like Franklin BBQ in Austin). Restaurants often have to hold food that takes long time to cook for service, and there are all sorts of warming boxes, etc. And BBQ joints do often run out of particular items due to the long cook time... they may make 10 shoulders or 8 briskets and when it's gone, it's gone for the day.",
"Items like brisket and ribs can sit in warmers for long periods of time, where chicken can't. Often times the pit masters work awful hours putting their meat in the evening, and pulling it out in the early morning, then placing these hearty cuts of meat in warmers before moving onto other food that's harder to keep warm and delicious like chicken. As far as more local BBQ joints, once they're out, they're out. I can't speak for large chains, but I assume that they possibly keep already prepped food cold, and warm it up as needed. Chicken - absolutely terrible, pain in the ass. I can't count the number of times we've tossed our entire whole chickens because the workers got tired of eating it, or no one bought it. You had to make several throughout the day because of picky eaters."
],
"score": [
8,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
63v0la | when calling 911, why are people billed if they need an ambulance but they're not billed if they need fire fighters or police? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfx7vs4",
"dfx8hkw",
"dfx6rsx",
"dfy0mfj"
],
"text": [
"Cops and Firefighters are paid by the state/city which comes from the taxes you pay, so technically your paying for them whether you call them or not just having them ready as insurance. Ambulances on the other hand is more open hospitals don't always own a ambulance depending on size and budget and hospitals are for profit organizations they work to make money like any other service like a repair shop for cars or a towing company. They sometimes have contracts with companies that have trained EMT and such to drive ambulances to pick up a person in distress. So your paying the ambulance itself since its not getting money from taxation. Basically in the US medical field is for profit and runs like a business.",
"This is different across the country. In my state, if firefighters come out because of your actions, you will be billed and it will make an ambulance bill look like pennies. Law enforcement does not typically bill, but there is always the chance they seize your assets if you are committing a crime, so there's that. It is generally a bad idea to disincentive people from calling police, although I wouldn't put it past some local governments to do it.",
"ambulances are often privately owned companies and not publicly funded like fire or police. also if you call in fake fires or unnecessary calls, volunteer fire depts. might send you a bill",
"It really depends on where you are located... Here outside a City Limit where taxes are paid for fire protection the volunteer and private fire department will intact send a bill, but you may never see said bill as it's sent first to your insurance, they pay what they are willing to pay and the fire company usually writes off or forgives the remainder. I currently am with a EMS Corporation that is contracted by the city/county to provide ambulance coverage. But I have been with government (county ran) services in the past. Private (corporations) Ambulance companies send a bill to pay for the services rendered and of course make a small profit. Now your prolly asking yourself why ambulance rides cost so much... Let's say a typical ambulance response (yes I said typical) for nausea and vomiting x4 hours and can barely stand. Ambulance comes out with lights and sirens to your home and gives you fluids, runs an EKG and an anti-emetic (zofran commonly) and transports you to the hospital that is 10 miles from your home. The bill you receive isn't just for the services described above. In addition to what you realize or remember, there are the wages per hour (most ambulance calls take from dispatched to cleared and available for the next call right at an hour) of two people, then the fuel, disposables (gloves, electrodes, IV Supplies ), laundry costs for the sheets, Then there's insurance for said vehicle, state or local licensing for the ambulance, workers comp insurance, some of the billed amount is for preventative maintenance on the ambulance itself; maintenance on the stretcher, the cardiac monitor,etc. you factor in some cost for office staff, then costs of the building that office staff is located. Then there's the cost of outlaying stations if not in a 'system status' system, and the costs where those Paramedics and EMTS are staffing the truck when not on a call (ambulances are available 24/7 in most areas) And a small profit margin is factored in (in my experience it's usually less than 10%, mostly around 5%). Now to be completely Honest everything above makes up less than 1/2 and in my experience less than a 1/3 of your bill. The remainder is set as a cushion for the un/under insured, the uncollectible, those that refuse to pay, and lawsuits. Now I'm not describing that you get billed the full amount of say the hour of wages or the insurance, or some one else's bill. When ambulance companies set up their fee schedule they have an expectation of how many calls they will transport and bill for for the year; this number is used to divide the annual costs of all of these things and then the remaining number is what they come up for the bill. It's worth mentioning that no matter what a ground ambulance does for the patient (1 intervention or 15; oxygen or CPR), there is a limit and cap on what an ambulance bill can be. This can be found by googling if you choose to the Medicare CMS section for ambulances. This is basically the Bible for ambulance companies as no other insurance will pay for more than Medicare would. Most reputable ambulance services simply won't bill for more than what is \"Medicare allowable\" and the Majority won't bill any un paid by the insurance to the patient, unless they simply don't have insurance or they haven't met their copay with the insurance. Source: 15 years as a paramedic, 7 of those years in some form of supervisory role."
],
"score": [
19,
5,
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
63vx3e | Why do Americans buy drinks for home consumption in small containers but large packs? Like 12-pack of 330 ml soda cans or 24-packs of 500 ml water bottles? | I get that you want smaller single serving container for school or work but why Americans do that for stuff to drink at home? I've seen countless American TV shows and movies where people have dozen or more Coca-Cola cans in the fridge, same goes for water. But the orange juice they buy comes in 4.5 liter jugs!? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfxelyh",
"dfxep7z",
"dfxywrl"
],
"text": [
"For convenience; you don't have to get a glass, pour a drink, remember to put the glass back in the sink or dishwasher, wash the glass, etc. Also, carbonated beverages keep their carbonation longer in single-serving packaging, unlike the opening-closing-reopening of large soda bottles which loses carbonation with each opening. There's also a cost component: milk and juice are more expensive liquids than water and soda, so it's cheaper to buy milk and juice in \"bulk\" in a larger container than to buy single-packaged containers (although it's available as such). If it costs that much more, the cost/benefit of washing a cup leans more towards the cup than the convenience of single-serving packaging.",
"Large soda containers go flat quickly. I can buy 40 pack of .5L bottles of water at costco for 2.99 We dont usually buy soda and only water for traveling because it is so much cheaper than any alternative",
"... How do you buy your soda? Soda is carbonated OJ is not. The small can size is to avoid having have a 2L bottle of flat soda."
],
"score": [
12,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
63wm3b | Why did the Nazi's use a swastika for their flag? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfxkpfz",
"dfxjzwv",
"dfxkxxa"
],
"text": [
"The swastica is a incredibly old and prominent symbol that was used by several cultures. The most popular meaning of it was that it was a trowl either digging up or buying the old (there is a reversed swastica and I forget which one means which) it could symbolize rebirth recreation redestructuvery, ect a lot of re's. anyway hitler was really into symbolism and older ideologies so he coopted it. On a sepperate note I have no idea how I know this and I'm a bit bitter I can remeber this but not any of the accounting notes I'm supposed to be studying right now.",
"The Swastika is based on the Nordic 'solar cross,' which is two 'sun' runes crossed over each other. Hitler was a nut for that sort of mystic symbolism, and the original Teutons were thought to be from parts of Scandinavia.",
"The Nazis wanted to return Germany to a pre-Christian/pagan Aryan race ideal, so they chose a symbol that is common in pagan cultures, including Germanic ones. The idea that Judeo-Christian culture weakened Germany was basically started with Friedrich Nietzsche's \"slave morality\" thesis. He argued that Jews and Christians (as former slaves and the like) created a morality that valued kindness, humility, etc because they were weak, but the \"master morality\" that was prominent before Judeo-Christianity is superior in that it can lead to stronger individuals (Übermensch)."
],
"score": [
11,
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
63wyd6 | Where did the generic structure for pop music come from (verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus), and why is it so commonly used? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfxmw3y"
],
"text": [
"Its called a rondo. Its a basic pattern setup that works really well and is aesthetically pleasing to the ears. Artists stick with what works."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
63wz6f | Just how bad is the landfill situation and when will we reach our limit of trash? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfxuuf8",
"dfxnarg"
],
"text": [
"There are two parts here. One is that we (in the US) have capacity in our current land fills for hundreds of years at current rates. But also we are diverting more trash into recycling every year so the rate of trash being added to land fills is decreasing dramatically. Source: I work in the industry.",
"I assume you mean the US by \"we\"? Because some European countries like Sweden for example are actually starting to **import** waste because their recycling/energy creation processes are so efficient."
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
63ymz6 | Wrestling's fake, but is the winner of each fight predetermined as well in the "storylines"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfy1oe2"
],
"text": [
"They are determined in advance,[ sometimes as far as months in advance.]( URL_0 ) But they are always watching how certain wrestlers gain and loose popularity. There are more details to consider than simple winning and loosing. If they want to increase popularity of one guy without making the second guy loose they can make it a DQ win or have a third party come in and interrupt something, and some people get paid to loose to other people (think mankind) but if they are already in the ring when a new guy walks in with theme music and all, thoose guys in the ring are going to loose."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.quora.com/If-WWE-is-fake-wrestling-how-do-they-decide-who-wins"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
63yu98 | Why does the USA interfere with other countries? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfy5rvg",
"dfy4lmy"
],
"text": [
"Basically because wars are profitable. The US are at war about [93% of the time since its existence]( URL_0 ). If you intefere in a war, your country can employ more people in different parts of the economy to produce weapons and everything that is need for it. So basically more people have work. You can also make a deal with one of the war parties. You help one of them and get a discount on the import/export of the resources like oil etc. You can also install puppet regimes which will do everything you say to them, so you can profit from it.",
"All countries with any kind of power interfere with other countries they have relationships with or ties to, even small ones. Usually it's done to \"protect our interests\" whatever the ruling group considers that to mean at the time and keep the relationship favorable on their end. The US with economic and strategic ties just about everywhere has to juggle a lot of these interests at once, the other major global powers are doing the same thing. China manipulates other countries for their own benefit, Russia does it too, its the global power game."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/america-war-93-time-222-239-years-since-1776.html"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
63yv0r | If the fictional depiction of child sexualization is illegal in the case of lolicon and shotacon. Then why isn't the depiction of other heavy crimes such as rape and murder illegal in the form of drawings, animations and video games too? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfy747s",
"dfy5nm1",
"dfy8zsb",
"dfy2w6z",
"dfyn30u",
"dfyaymv",
"dfyll5y",
"dfym26f",
"dfya5zb",
"dfy6esx",
"dfykp27",
"dfyloat",
"dfymjnl"
],
"text": [
"It simply is that the possession of sexualised images of children is illegal in and of itself. With rape and murder however it is the act that is illegal and possessing images of that act doesn't constitute a crime in and of itself (outside of being the one to take them or deliberately concealing them from the police or various other crimes like that). There are certain concessions made for non-photographic work imported from outside the country for non-mainstream entertainment (manga, anime, visual novels, etc.) but for most of these they'll adjust the ages of characters up to 18 where possible in translated versions or downplay the sexualisation through careful editing.",
"It depends on the country - it's not illegal in the US ( URL_1 ), ( URL_0 )",
"Laws are sometimes based on emotion and not actual logic because laws are made by people. Many people including law makers believe if sexualized images of children were freely legal, it would promote more danger to the welfare of children. This idea is as antiquated as prohibition laws in the US for alcohol. What it amounts to logically is a thought crime. This does not somehow apply to murder and gore. The same idea of laws based on emotion go for hate crimes. The idea is that for some reason already heinous crimes are \"more\" illegal now because the intent was based on hate. The idea of making possession of pornographic imagery illegal is akin to the war on drugs or making prostitution illegal. What we are doing is not attacking the root of the problem which is the heart and mind. Back to the CP problem and why it is a thought crime. If I view sexual imagery of children, the thought is I have the \"potential\" to harm children or promote the harming of children. So I must be jailed for the \"potential\" and not for the crime of raping children. Let's use that logic for something else such as murder, which we should inherently think is very bad. In a world of complete command and control, we would make any imagery of killing illegal including video games because it has the \"potential\" of spreading violence and murder. Please try and convince me otherwise in a logical manner, or just let the flaming and down votes commence.",
"Each culture decides where they want to draw the line of free/prohibited speech. In Muslim cultures you can't depict Mohammed in Russia you can't draw a gay clown Putin. I personally feel that the sexualization of children is a pretty damn good place to draw the line.",
"IANAL but I do mod a site that has to deal with this. The laws are rather iffy. In Canada and Great Britain (but i don't know if that includes the whole UK) it IS illegal to own/view such images (and if nothing else they can be the basis to search your computer or belongings for more 'solidly' illegal material). In the US it is mostly not illegal as long as it is fictional and not realistic. The site i mod for is hosted in the US and for years we instantly removed anything that depicted the characters as children, or explicitly called them younger than 14 (but also based on art style to exclude the 1000 year old 6 year old bullshit). We have since allowed the loli/shota/cub stuff but only quarantined behind a secondary filter in a community you have to sub to to see, same for bestiality themed content: you only see it if you really really opt to and if it's anywhere else we burn it with fire. The reason for the change was that it was figured to be far enough away from the crime. A picture of murder is not a murder - the crime is killing, not seeing it - a picture of a naked child is a naked child - the crime is 'sexually viewing' a child - but a picture of a fake naked child is not a naked child. It is blurry as all fuck. However, and this is where the admin talked a bit to a lawyer but i don't have the conversation anymore, there is a weird legal bit where the more realistic it is the more blurred the line becomes; shota-cub is pretty far from a real kid being harmed but editing a picture of a 12 year old to make them seem sexual is pretty close to a kid being harmed. The same rule weirdly enough goes for bestiality themed drawings and animations; the closer it looks to being real the closer it is to the crime itself. The main reason is that children are \"Our Children\" and being soft on any issue like that is political suicide; so where other things can still be called art as soon as kids are involved the art claim gets overruled by the \"My Kid\" claim.",
"In the context you're giving, lolicon and shotacon are \"complexes\" in that individuals enjoy the depictions. The nature of the work is meant to promote the sexualization as a positive thing. With rape or extreme violence, the intent is rarely to promote the act itself as a positive thing. Even in works that seemingly show off extreme violence or sexuality as a spectacle, the aim of the creator is often to elicit a reaction because of the presentation of extremes so casually. While there exist individuals that do enjoy rape and violence for the acts themselves, they are almost never the target demographics for modern works. Rape and violence are more like tools that have niche communities that pervert them. Loli and shota on the other hand are niche communities themselves that promote and enjoy what fans of the larger community of anime fans could consider a perversion of the tools of young, cute characters.",
"It seems no one is answering the heart of this question which is \"Why is it ok for violent acts but not this?\" I believe it has to do with the majority of individuals not having an innate attraction to adolescents. The concern is that with exposure to sexualized images of children people will begin to sexualize adolescents when they otherwise would not and therefore lead to more instances of sexual abuse in real life. In regards to violence on the other hand, while it is not accepted it is understood to be part of our natural mental makeup. Showing images in regards to violence in essence isn't going to instill any feelings that weren't seen to be naturally there in the first place. Now whether it manages to incite more violence or not is another debate.",
"Wrote this a reply deep in one of these threads; > That isn't how paedophilia or sexual \"fetishes\" work. The reason paedophilia is grouped in with fetishes is because there's minimal evidence that it's vaguely related to sexual orientation. General consensus on fetishes is that they occur as a byproduct of stimulus relations. Basically, you jerk off to X, there's a relationship between X and sexual gratification, and that relationship is progressively reinforced each time you return to X. Sometimes the foundations of this relationship can be laid at an early age, for example, victims of childhood sexual abuse are more likely to exhibit later sexual behaviours related to that abuse. So by providing cartoon paedophilia, you're essentially providing budding paedophiles with stimuli which will reinforce their proclivities. This leads on to a key principle of stimulus relations and of psychology in general; habituation. Repeated exposure to a stimulus reduces responses to said stimulus. This is particularly true for sexual deviancies due to the taboo factor, which will decrease as a particular fetish is normalised with exposure. So people seek out more potent forms of whatever their poison is, just like an addict. So paedophiles will progressively become desensitized and habituated to animated paedophilia, and will go elsewhere for their kicks.",
"There's a reason there are no child NPC's in games like GTA & Saint's Row, or the minor NPC's in the Fallout & Elder Scrolls games are normally unkillable. If it were possible out of the box, the games would probably be outright banned in most countries, rather than just getting an adults-only / 18+ age rating",
"It depends on the country. As you state such drawn images aren't illegal in Japan. By contrast Germany has quite strict censorship laws on what can be depicted.",
"I have read and also heard from my roommate who is a psychologist that allowing pedophiles to engage their fantasy whether that be through actually or simulated child porn serves as positive feedback for their pedophilia and increases their likelihood of searching for actual child porn or committing acts of abuse. I understand that my sources are pretty anecdotal so take this with a fairly large grain of salt, but the logic makes sense and (if valid) serves as a fairly convincing (in my opinion) rationale for disallowing any depictions of sexualized children. Too me it seems similar to the ask-a-rapist thread which psychologists argued would actually inspire the contributors to commit further acts of sexual violence.",
"A depiction of child sexualization is a child sexualisation. A depiction of rape is not a rape.",
"I've seen a few comments suggesting drawings as an 'outlet' for paedophiles, so they don't molest children. This is false. Fantasising/ looking at images 'rewards' the urges (dopamine release reinforces the behavioural/ cognitive response to the stimulus). There is very little support in research for any sort of 'catharsis' effect (e.g. Aggression)."
],
"score": [
296,
82,
53,
45,
12,
10,
9,
8,
7,
5,
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130391&page=1",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
63zdqa | Why do cops wear oxford shoes rather than running/sports shoes? Wouldn't they be more mobile with the latter? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfyhcjs",
"dfyjix7",
"dfysuwl",
"dfz0s5n"
],
"text": [
"The dress codes vary from department to department and have been evolving for a long time. Most officers I know now (pretty high number, nature of my job) favor all black boots on duty. Not western style boots, more of a military / hiking / trail runner style that is pretty comfortable, provides ankle support and foot protection and is conducive to running. When my dad was a patrolman (early 70s) it was black oxfords and they wore a tie as part of their uniform, which was a holdover from earlier times when even bus drivers and the milkman wore a tie. Usually a clip on so it couldn't be used against them in a fight.",
"A lot of police wear Magnum boots; a composite toe, high traction boot that resists penetration and is lighter than a pair of Air Jordans. URL_0",
"Cop here. I have two issued footwear. I have my dress shoes for my dress uniform. Standard slick bottom shoes for formal events, funerals, parades, etc. I am also issued boots. The boots they give us aren't the best, but they work. And we can trade our boots in and pay an upcharge to have them order any other pair of boots we'd like. What most officers here do, myself included, is go for whatever style we want and just pay the difference, which is around 50 to 100 bucks. The kind I use is a boot designed like a pair of running shoes. They offer protection like a boot around the food and ankle, but don't have the rigidity of a boot. Some prefer to have thicker/taller boots though. The main reason I think there isn't a standard issue black running shoe is due to proneness for injury. While my Brooks GTS would be fantastic to wear, I have been in foot chases before where I've completely eaten my ass. The boots I wear protected me from spraining my ankle or otherwise hurting more than my pride.",
"There is an entire niche industry of companies that make law enforcement specific clothing. There are nice looking button down shirts where the buttons are fake and they're hiding a zipper, dress pants with hidden cargo pockets, and even comfortable reliable boots or shoes that look like dress shoes. Just because a cop looks like he's wearing dressy clothes doesn't mean he is."
],
"score": [
196,
26,
14,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://www.magnumboots.com/ca/boots/professional/459/stealth-force-80-sz-ctcp/"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
63zfls | How "psychics", mediums and other frauds know specific personal information | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfy9sp7",
"dfy7qw5",
"dfycy04",
"dfy660c",
"dfyaeth",
"dfy8pm8",
"dfy6ket",
"dfy72vo",
"dfyaoxn",
"dfyfpyi",
"dfycvk7",
"dfy9kr2",
"dfyh1wm",
"dfyasgl",
"dfyazuu",
"dfye3ok",
"dfyegsi",
"dfybsfc",
"dfyaw6j",
"dfyali1",
"dfyb9j4",
"dfycvl3",
"dfybf33",
"dfye1mb",
"dfyef9f",
"dfyc2ue",
"dfyddsg",
"dfyfh7d",
"dfyenfj",
"dfyc5fa",
"dfyash9",
"dfyb0fm",
"dfyc0sm",
"dfyg3qa",
"dfyhx3a"
],
"text": [
"there are a lot of tricks. involved. shotgunning - is a basically a technique which gets used all over the place where you say things that are in reality very general but relate to people personally so sound very specific. (see buzzfeeds X number of things show you come from X. hint: they are all very similar) cold-reading - another technique where you basically spew a lot of bits of information and watch the target for some sort of reaction. people will generally involuntarily react when they hear the beginning of something they are thinking about, like names. Added into this if the 'medium' is close people will often jump in and correct them, whilst stil believing they are being read. pre-prep - For much more targeted work, it is very possible to gather a lot of free information about someone before you ever meet. Thinks like twitter and facebook are a treasure trove of information. So if you know the details already you just need to add in the act of diving the information from them. This also works in studios etc, where they will ask you to do something like fill in a basic survey or give certain details when you buy the ticket for example. they key thing to remember, is if you are seeing someone do this publicly in some sort of show, they it is likely they have practices their techniques over many hours/years. Much like magicians and sleight of hand, they are able to pick a lot of information from people that might not seem immediately obvious unless you have the expertise in looking for it. The secondary part of this is, they will always find more success with people that want to believe. These people will take something that was maybe close and in their mind remember it as almost exact becasue it reinforces their pre-existing belief that the experience was legitimate.",
"The big thing is getting other people to do the work. Get a big enough group of people, and you've got a lot of opportunities to guess things. And then when you give the audience a vague statement or guess, they will step in and fill in the blanks for you. \"I've got a name, beginning with M, or N. A sudden death. And a connection with the sea. Does that sound like anyone here?\" \"Why yes, that sounds like my aunt Maggie, who lived by the sea and fell of a cliff.\" \"Well, it could be my brother Mark, who got lost at sea.\" \"Now now, it's obviously my dad Nigel who worked at sea world and got eaten by a killer whale\". Give a vague statement, and watch as hopeful idiots try to make the connection themselves. The psychic just had to ask the right questions. (Boop)",
"Just to put it out there, unless a particular situation is manipulative/problematic, I would let your coworkers believe what they want - whatever makes a really difficult job a little easier to deal with. edit: \"But (1)some/(2)every situation is manipulative/problematic!\" (1) For the one's that are problematic, I would absolutely espouse some kind of resolution - do not allow people you care about to be taken advantage of in detrimental ways, or for anyone's superstitions to affect their professional responsibilities. (2) **On the psychic side**, sure - psychics are always manipulative, if not outright delusional. I would probably advocate strictly regulating the whole practice, or at least slapping a bright neon disclaimer on it; it wouldn't take much for me to believe it should be outlawed all together. **On the believer side**, it is simply false that it is always problematic to believe in psychics or to hold other superstitions. If you think it is *always* a problem to believe such things, show me an argument that can handle the abundance of counterexamples of people who believe crazy things to the benefit of themselves and those around them. Such counterexamples are by no means the majority, but they're also not uncommon. Simply *assuming* all situations are identical and that you can apply universal policies to them without taking account of particularity is itself a falsehood, and one that - as I agree is the case with superstition - can *often* do more harm than good.",
"Clever little tricks, like if you're over 60 or so they can pretty well assume your parents are dead and talk about them. A wedding ring, or lack of one, even a tan line showing one was once worn, provides further clues. This is just scratching the surface. It's a technique called Cold Reading.",
"I am always skeptical, but one time a medium kinda got me. My mom had a psychic come over for her and her friends. I lived far away from home at the time and nothing in the house belonged to, or referenced me at all. The sessions were conducted in a spare bedroom, individually and recorded. I listened to the tape from my mom's and one thing the medium said made me perk up. She asked my mom if I thought about birds a lot, to which my mom said no, not that she's aware. The thing is, I always think about birds. I think they are cute and neat, the represent freedom to me. I had just gotten a tattoo of a swallow on my right arm, something I specifically withheld from my mom as she dislikes tattoos. I doodle birds, wings etc when I'm bored. I don't discuss my interest because, well it's not interesting and I don't want to be the \"bird guy\". Not saying that is proof it's all real, but it was a damn good guess otherwise.",
"I'd like to point out another thing, besides the answers about body language, phrasing, observations etc. A very important thing to mention is confirmation bias. The tendency to accept evidence that confirms our beliefs and to reject evidence that contradicts them. Or put much more weight on those who seems to back up your beliefs or wishes. People often really want psychics to be able to speak to their loved ones, so they can believe they are in a good place. Take away some uncertainty about the future. Or tell someone something about themselves. Subjects will fit the psychic's statements to their own lives. Thus during the reading the psychic proceeds to make a large number of ambiguous statements with the help of which he/she gives the clients more opportunities to find a match to their own experience or personality. In other words the clients will selectively though unconsciously remember those statements made by the psychic that apply to their lives rather than those which don’t apply. Confirmation bias isn't something stupid people do. Absolutely everyone does it, it's built in. The scientific method is designed so that this shouldn't matter, but even scientists does it often. When they believe or want a theory to be true.",
"What such people are is very good observers. Your body language tells them more than you can imagine, they see a ring or the tan line of a ring on your finger, they know you are married or maybe divorced lately? They listen to their surroundings. And when it comes to the typical conversations they use phrases that hit bulls eye with 75-90% of the people they talk to. In the case of your colleagues working in a cancer ward: Most people who work there care about others, have specific character traits...as you said superstitious bunch. The bread and butter of such fraudsters is to know their prey.",
"Some ways are very easy URL_0 This guy just made people fill out cards with their info and then had an ear piece with someone feeding him the info. You should watch the Netflix documentary of James randi",
"[South Park had a decent episode about it]( URL_0 ) Stan breaks down the basics pretty well.",
"> most of my colleagues, being nurses and HCAs and such, are a superstitious bunch Is this a thing? I wouldn't have thought so among the medical profession. I really hope not.",
"Former psychic here (psychics **don't** exist, was just a job). Most of the people here are correct with the various subsets of Cold-Reading/ educated guessing. However, the cream-of-the-crop (your's truly) would also do their homework. Find census data. In this town in 1965 85% of men worked at the XYZ, and 13% worked at the ABC plant, while 2% were other? \"I see, your father coming home with his hard hat and his XYZ jacket.\" \"My Dad didn't work at XYZ\" \"No, of course, he worked out of the ABC plant, but it was raining, and a friend lent him the jacket your father dropped him off. He was always so generous your father, helping people out, isn't that right?\" Here I guessed with 98% accuracy *where* their father worked and **forced** them to admit I was right. How? I bundled \"my vision\" with \"your father was generous and helpful\" in such a way that admitting to one admits to the whole statement. Accurate and spooky, no?",
"what I want to know is what would happen if we put these mediums to work in a group of people from different cultures and speak different languages. How would their \"powers\" work when people don't use the roman alphabet?",
"> most of my colleagues, being nurses and HCAs and such, are a superstitious bunch Being a nurse and not superstitious, I'm not sure how to take this.",
"I was always skeptical of psychics until the day a psychic predicted by name, somebody I would meet half a year before I met them. The craziest part, psychic is American and the name was highly unusual and Asian. Until today I have no explanation for it. So say what you will, and I'm sure there are tons of fake psychics out there. But a small number of them are definitely for real.",
"When I was in college, a girl told me she could read objects. I gave her my ring and she was vague and inaccurate. Her roommate, who I had just met an hour or so before, gave me her ring so I could try it out myself. I literally saw a name swirling around the ring and just said it out loud. It was her mother's name (who had given her the ring). I also got her father's name and some information about an upcoming wedding she was involved in, immediately, and all on the first try. I have no idea how it works. I wasn't even expecting it to work, but it did. Edit: I don't really care if anyone on here believes me. After that, I had at least put to rest whether or not this type of thing was possible. I was able to do it several more times to my satisfaction.",
"I have been a divination hobbyist for over a decade and I have no idea how to cold read. Honestly, if you use tarot and astrology in the classically practiced sense, the information you provide is vague enough to work on almost anyone. It does get spooky though. Last time I read someone's astrology chart, I correctly guessed that her husband was a Pisces based on some very strong signals in her chart (she had a neptune in pisces falling directly on her descendant, which is the point of marriage and partnerships, and pisces is \"ruled by\" neptune). With tarot decks you have a number of different but related interpretations for each card, and you can start to fish around for a theme connecting them all. It usually dazzles people. It probably helps that a tiny part of me believes that it works, I think my own genuine feeling that I'm tapping into something \"magical\" creates a sense of wonder in others. If nothing else, I present tarot cards as a method for skeptics to use to think about their lives in a broader sense and get an idea of what they really *want* in their lives.",
"Woman came to to my sister just after our dad died, told her her dad was ok, he was with her and he looked small even though he was tall (he had a slightly hunched back). She gave her a hug and walked off. I don't care if it was bullshit, it made my sister feel nice for a little while.",
"I went to one psychic of a whim and very skeptical. It took about 40 minutes and ended up being 50/50. Never gone to her or another one again. The most memorable was she used a few different card decks and during the playing card one, she flipped over the cards that read exactly how much my house cost me. She flipped the numbers and last was a jack. She said to watch it because someone is going to try to pull the wool over my eyes. A month later negotiating the price, the fact I had to install a complete new furnace system in the house, came out to exactly the price she predicted.",
"Here's a video of a noted skeptic showing how mediums and psychics work. Well worth watching. At the very best, these people are deluded at the worst they are crooks preying on people's sadness. URL_0",
"There are 2 ways. The Hot read and the Cold read. Hot reads come from prior knowledge and research about a clients personal life. Social media has made that so easy. The cold read comes from similar methods to interrogation. They make statements that limit the field, and then based on the micro expressions and their responses they can make more accurate statements.",
"This page lists some of the cognitive biases that make psychics seem to work : URL_0 And another more thorough explanation here : URL_1",
"*Is* it specific information, though? (Spoiler: no.) This is James Randi debunking Maureen Flynn. It is one of the my favorite examples of just how easily fooled people are. URL_0 If you would like other video links let me know. Randi has done a lot of work exposing these fraudsters. /edit To reiterate something others (and yourself) have alluded to, people being fooled by this sort of thing are not fools. They are generally vulnerable and desperate, and the people pushing these scams are awful individuals with no consciences.",
"It's a combination of things. Darren Brown has covered the topic plenty, but here's a good intro video: URL_0 The \"reader\" does his part, but, sadly, the victim does too. Not by a fault of their own, but by how the tricks work. The biggest thing is confirmation bias, the person being read usually *is accepting* of the readers *ability* to read, so they ignore any information that goes against the truth of it being a general guessing game. The reader also tends to move on, quick and fast, so as to not leave room for criticism--our minds can only process so much at a time. By the end of it, unless you have a camera, it's tough to repeat what exactly happened, so the person is left with an *experience* and *emotional* high, but not an accurate memory of the reading. If you have access to it, look for a show called \"Penn & Teller's Bullshit.\" They have an episode dedicated to Cold Reading and how it's done. Mind you, this is only partially how it's done. There's many ways to find out information about people, and with today's active social media, it's easier than ever to find out specific details.",
"I'm very skeptical about all of this stuff. My wife is kind of half and half. There's a strong tradition of this in her village and some of the seers can be crazy accurate. She makes a big distinction between what we think a mechanism is and what it might actually be. For example, if you have a headache and a shaman tells you to drink this tea made from the bark of a willow tree, your headache will go away. He'll tell you it's because the good spirit of the tree drove out the bad spirit in your head. Ask a scientist and he'll say you made an asprin tea and that's the active ingredient in the bark. The shaman cured you even if the explanation doesn't comport with science. I hear what people are saying about cold reading and fishing for information and I would bet that happens a lot of the time. What i have trouble sussing out is when a really oddball reaction is thrown out there, something that a fraud wouldn't run with because of low odds for success but it's true. The thing I always come back to is if the phenomena is real, it should be provable with scientific experimentation. Double-blind tests, see if you can get statistically significant results. So far we've got nothing. The plural of anecdote is not data and personal testimony can't be held up in the same fashion as experimental evidence. But there are some damn spooky stories.",
"This video is a tad long, but if your really interested in the topic it's a fantastic interview with Derren Brown which really goes into the techniques and skills these 'psychics' use, both for big crowds and one on one encounters. Plus he gives some interesting insights into his take on the morality of it all which are pretty fascinating URL_0",
"Check out a show called The Mentalist if this sounds interesting. The main character does this throughout the entire show. Used to be a psychic but now helps cops so he can find his wife's killer. It's not a great show but the cold readings and mind stuff he does is hilarious and gives you a very clear idea of how people in real life do it.",
"True story, my wife is deathly allergic to peanuts. At the time if she even so much as touched peanuts, there was a chance for anaphylactic shock. Years ago her friends convinced her join them all to visit a psychic that had come to town. I recommended that she remain quiet and that she should let the psychic do all the talking. She plays it cool and when he finally gets to her, his first words are \"you! Yes you, you need to eat more peanuts. They will be good for you.\" He also said I was going to be successful. A fraud indeed.",
"One might be just checking their Facebook's in advance. Choosing your marks and putting on a show.",
"Derren Brown did a 'medium' part of his stage show a few years ago. It'll probably be on YouTube. The entire way through he was telling us that it was fake and he wasn't contacting the dead. He was just very skilled at cold reading.",
"There's a really good documentary about magician James Randi where he sent a \"vacuum salesmen\" to the home of a lady who had bought tickets to one of his upcoming shows. Anyhoo the guy noticed a little rose on a clock face on the mantle, told Randi, randy picks her from the audience and yada yada.",
"I cold read a chick drunk once when I was a teenager, I was making bold claims about cold reading and she took me up on my bs, strangely enough I was mostly right about her. Your brain picks up more than you know, and just winging it sometimes taps into that, I think. it was all educated guesswork, no voices from beyond or anything, just whatever came into my head from observation.",
"They Don't. They guess. Many times. Watch JAMES RANDI on the youtubes. he has a $1 million Dollar challenge for anyone that can prove they have psychic abilities and other profound claims such as perpetual motion. It explains how they use lots of guesses in order to get one hit, and it seems to the audience like they know things. some guesses are easier than others to get a hit. Such as \"I'm sensing a John in the room?\" (quite likely there is) and things like \" i feel there is pain, has anyone died, or any accidents ?\" and also quite likely to get a hit :P",
"It's a combination of a few things. 1.) Recon. The room, and the seats are likely bugged. people like to talk \"Oh why are you here?\" \"I'm hoping to connect with Leto, he died under strange circumstances.\" The \"psychic\" can be fed this information by other staff and use it later. 2.) Let the participants do the work. It's not guesswork so much as it is being intentionally vague. \"I'm getting a Man. It's a tough connection but maybe Lenny, or Leo...\" Then the audience member might either think he said leto, or hopeful, say \"Do you mean Leto!?!\" Then it's just about being vague and using what you might be fed from plants in the audience, or your bugs.",
"I read about an experiment where a group of volunteers were each given a random fortune, and asked to raise their hand if they thought it was somewhat accurate. Everyone raised their hand. Then the participants were told to look at their neighbor's fortune. Everyone had been given the exact same thing. People tend to personalize even universal parts of life. Given the right prompts, it becomes easy to see meaning when it isn't there. There are already plenty of answers here, but I wanted to add this bit because I think it exemplifies the nature of how psychics try to connect with people. Once the person \"buys it,\" they are willing to do mental gymnastics to make the fortune fit their life.",
"So, this has nothing to do with the question, but at my work there is a massage therapist who comes in sometimes to do massages. One day, I was working a health fair and the massage therapist was there giving free 5 min chair massages, so I went over to have one. Everything is fine and normal, and then at the end of the massage, he goes, I don't want to freak you out, but sometimes I get these feelings. Did you have a paternal grandmother who passed away recently? (my grandmother had passed away a few months prior), so I go yes, I did, and he goes, well she wants you to know that she is with you and that something that you think is bad will turn out to be good. And that's all he says. Now, I don't live anywhere near the rest of my family, so there is no way he would have known that someone in my family died, specifically my grandmother on my dads side. He doesn't have a business doing psychic readings, he only does massage, and I wasn't paying him anything. At the time, I was going through a tough breakup, but shortly after we broke up, I met my now fiancé. So, I can't explain how he would know anything or why he would try and fake out some random girl when he really had no motive for secondary gain, but it made me a believer."
],
"score": [
784,
476,
248,
202,
62,
49,
41,
31,
30,
23,
20,
15,
12,
12,
10,
10,
8,
8,
7,
7,
5,
5,
5,
5,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Popoff"
],
[
"http://southpark.cc.com/clips/153776/the-other-side"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/U8EqdUYqlpY"
],
[],
[
"http://sidewiseinsights.blogspot.com/2011/01/that-psychic-was-so-accurate-part-20-of.html?m=1",
"http://skepdic.com/coldread.html"
],
[
"https://youtu.be/FSSPto8rvvs"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ikk2DlEKQCw"
],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X56Kmbgn6dE"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
63zx5a | Why and when did sex turned into a dirty sin and become something bad or something we can't open talk about? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfyaflv",
"dfyerxs",
"dfyio41",
"dfyigun",
"dfyjx23",
"dfyfqji"
],
"text": [
"Here's something I've kept for years that I got from another redditor. Jesus himself does not talk about sex much, and only really obliquely when talking about marriage generally, but he did also do a hell of a lot of things that would have profoundly scandalized his audience - particularly interacting with women who were clearly prostitutes in an intimate way. You'll find a lot more in the Pauline epistles. When English translations of the New Testament bible talk about 'sexual immorality' they are really talking about the greek word porneia (πορνεία), it’s used almost every time the topic of sex comes up and generally when talking about the worst sins in general. Now porneia has always been translated into Latin as fornication, while being understood by many conservatives to just be a 1:1 stand in for 'any sexual expression not between husband and wife'. However, Porneia in post-classical Corinthian Greek did not mean generic sexual sin, or sex outside of marriage, at all [and neither did fornication in actual Latin.]( URL_0 ) The word porneia as Greeks actually used it was related to the verb to sell, and was only ever used in one context. A porneon was a house of forced prostitution, pornos (πόρνος) were those who sexually assaulted those forced into prostitution, pornois (πόρνοις) were more than one, the pornēs (πόρνης) were specifically those prostitutes who were 'owned' by a sex trafficker to be sold for pathetic sums to any traveler, and those sex traffickers were called pornoboskos, a singularly unpleasant combination with the verb that described the keeping of livestock such as cattle. Paul used the word over and over again in his Epistles to make two primary assertions, that the ubiquitous system of porneia (πορνεία) fed by war and poverty was fundamentally not OK, and that a laundry list of examples were pretty much the same thing. This fundamental position on sex, that it is something that even could, much less must, be divorced from exploitation was profoundly radical and novel for the time - even if it is hard to see today being the water we swim in. It makes sense that Paul was so concerned about sex because it was one of the most fucked up aspects of the world he lived in, and the scale on which it was fucked up is truly unimaginable to us modern readers of the historical records we have. Indeed, the word porneia is one of the more thoroughly defined terms we have from the post-classical greek lexicon, as the ancient greeks were so legally concerned, as well as facetiously fascinated, with it; leaving us with pretty much zero doubt about what it meant to them. To really understand it requires a little bit of context. Under the laws of Draco in ancient Greece, where we get the term draconian today, any man who caught another man having sex with his wife could legally kill that man with perfect immunity. That is, in addition to being able to just get some friends together and safely jump him while he was taking a shit Pulp Fiction style, the cuckold could also capture the adulterer and inflict whatever tortures he imagined so long as he didn't use a knife. In practice this usually resulted in the aggrieved man extracting exorbitant amounts of money from the adulterer in exchange for forfeiting that immunity, but it also formed the basis for some really fascinating trials. Draconian law, as well as later codes, in this instance, only applied to wives (as well as concubines kept for the purpose of producing free children) and explicitly not to pornēs or those like them such as flute players, bridge women, wanderers, alley walkers, or ground beaters. Thus we have copious records of those accused of abetting adultery aggressively defending themselves by declaring the objects of their attentions to pornēs - while very precisely defining the term as describing women available for sale. Its important to keep in mind what sexual immorality - porneia - meant for the society Paul was advising his churches on how to live it. Before Paul, porneia was seen as a totally uncontroversial part of life, the systematic rape of the vulnerable that it represented was regulated by cities in the same way that roads were, as a lucrative public utility. Price caps were established to protect 'consumers', pornoboskoi were given licenses to ensure quality 'product', and districts to operate in (generally near docks or city gates) to manage the noise and filth of the whole business. The 'trade' was also clearly not small, much less a small part of life in the world early Christianity was addressing. While it is very unclear what the exact percentage of women could be described as pornēs would be in any western society before the advent of the modern census, it is clear that at the time it was at least astonishingly large - particularly after military victories against foreigners as writers would report cities flooded with more cheap pornēs than they could rape at any price. It is also important to consider that every woman in that era had the threat of being sold into porneia hanging over her head, as women who lost the social status granted to them by a man for whatever reason could always be sold for 'scrap value.' This would have been true to varying degrees whether that status was by virtue of being somewhere on the sexual partner to a man spectrum between 'wedded wife,' kept as part of a relationship with her father's family and for the purpose of producing heirs, and disposable hanger on or by virtue of being maintained as a sister or daughter or cousin. There are authors who describe, in detail that would make the vilest Pick-Up-Artist blush, how they would make it very clear to their partners that the pornoboskoi were always by the gate should they ever talk back or the sex get bad. In the way Paul uses the word though, it does also pretty clearly have jargon meaning specific to the communities he was addressing in addition to the root concept that underpins it. Indeed, Paul does clearly both put on his judging face and use the word porneia when describing examples of things like adultery or sex outside of marriage, even when there are no pornoboskoi or porneon in sight and no one is exchanging money much less anything as pathetic as sums exchanged for pornēs. However, this also only really makes a lot of sense in the context of the day. Examples of economically independent women who did not rely on sex work in the Roman world were very few and far between, and almost exclusively widows or only daughters still attached to dead men. In the world that Paul was trying to change, the magnitude of male privilege was such that women were fundamentally unable to exist economically independent of men. Sex outside of the commitment of marriage really was functionally very much like porneia, and was a clear path to the real thing. The Pauline model for marriage is about avoiding porneia and the laundry list of examples of things he gives as being just like it. Without Pauline marriage there was no protection from being used by a partner until old and discarded to the elements; Paul stipulated headship but also repeatedly and inescapably mandates that men place their wives before themselves, that apostasy and misconduct are the only appropriate reasons for divorce, and that women are no less than men before God. The early church was flooded with women attracted by this radically feminist message that women were actually people with dignity that was inherent to them and needed to be respected by men. Even today porneia is by no means gone, in absolute numbers there are more women in sexual slavery today than there have ever been at any point in human history. However, most of the women who aren’t will be able to avoid it into a Pauline model marriage, some variety of post-Pauline marriage, a functionally equivalent model, or into a world made safer by them.",
"When you have sex your brain is flooded with hormones designed to trigger a bonding instinct (so that you want to stay with the person you had sex with and raise babies). Because of this sex and very strong emotional bonds generally, but not always, go hand in hand. And this is where things get messy. When one person has strong emotional bonds and the other person does not, MASSIVE disputes arise. People regularly kill other people because of these feelings. So it makes absolutely perfect sense that there would be a social taboo around having sex with people other than a committed partner. And once you can only have sex inside a relationship it means sex is private. And because its private, powerful, and has some very strong social rules around it, it is understandable that it would have some taboos around even discussing it or going into the details. This is reinforced by the concept of masculinity that has ALWAYS been tied to sexual performance. In biological terms if birds could gossip that \"Big Bird isn't a good sexual partner and you should have sex with Tucan Sam instead\" you have just biologically slandered Big Bird in the worst way, evolutionarily, that you could. So again, taboo to even talk about it. And people then warp all those taboos into it being bad. After all, if we can't talk about it, get uncomfortable dealing with it, etc. it must be bad. This isn't helped by the fact it feels fucking great and people have a natural tendancy to think things that are pleasurable have a negative edge to them somehow.",
"if you're really interested, i would highly reccomend reading michel foucault's the history of sexuality. there's sparknotes on his chapters so it's really easy reading. just a fair warning though, it's a sociological piece so while he does talk about the victorian era and how sex or sexuality was once openly discussed, he focused a lot more on how the state and other institutions in society affected how we look at sex. but basically it was due to a movement by the victorian government that led sex to be seen as something that should only be discussed in the private space and among family because they thought that talking about sex in public portrayed you as uncouth.",
"I wish I knew ! I know it's definitely a cultural thing. My tribe is super chill about sex, but like when white folks forced Christianity on us it did change how we view sex to some degree. My family follows the tribal tradition so we are still very liberal about our sexual views, but Christians in our community tend to be like really weirdly obsessed with how scandalous sex is. Seems like a waste of energy to me LOL",
"If you go outside the US, you will find many countries that are way less uptight and repressive about sex (except the reaaally conservative Catholic ones). The weird standards in the US always amazed me. \"No, your boyfriend cannot stay the night, but here's the car, go and take a ride\". Duh, what are we gonna do? Just hold hands or something? It sometimes appeared to me like more than half of Americans lost their virginity in the backseat of a car somewhere in the woods (That would be one statistic I'd love to see by the way). And as far as preventing anything goes, it doesn't even work (if you look at your place in the teenage pregnancy statistics). Kids will just be secretive about it and do it anyway, and since they can't ask for your advice, they might screw up and become pregnant or catch an STD.",
"Because random fucking back in the day used to produce usually unwanted children. Also back in the day these children if they were boys tended to inherit the property of their fathers. The more bastard children you had the more problematic inheritance worked, often leading to violence. The Church really didn't start cracking down on this kind of stuff until around 1000CE. Before then marriage and sex was in a sort of grey area. It wasn't uncommon for Christians to practice polygamy before the Church cracked down. So perhaps you can argue it was a way for the Church to sort of stabilize the newly converted ruling class of Europe."
],
"score": [
423,
32,
16,
14,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fornication#Etymology_and_usage"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
640nnq | Beer bellies. Why do Europeans who drink strong thick beer not have many beer bellies compared to many American men who drink mostly light beer? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfykdfn",
"dfyf37b",
"dfylek0",
"dfyih5t",
"dfyf60t",
"dfyh2gv",
"dfylif3",
"dfyjl8n",
"dfyf734",
"dfyiz3b",
"dfyquo4",
"dfyk67o",
"dfyffjx",
"dfyof9y",
"dfyq0zg",
"dfyrhqc",
"dfysr92",
"dfyw61l",
"dfyqtvn",
"dfyra5h",
"dfyk13o",
"dfyxzvv"
],
"text": [
"I'm not sure that the difference is really as stark as you might be thinking it is. The biggest beer drinkers in the world are from the Czech Republic. The WHO says that over 73% of Czech men are overweight or obese. Around 66% of all adults there are overweight or obese. Something like 60% of German men are overweight or obese. Germans are top 5 in the world for beer consumption. The U.S. falls way down the list at #17 for per person beer consumption, but 74% or U.S. men are still overweight or obese. So American men drink far less beer per person than Czech men, but have similar rates of overweight/obesity. So you'll see the basically same percentage of \"beer bellies\" in the world's biggest beer drinking country as you will in the U.S., but far less beer is drunk by the American sporting that belly than by the Czech. This is simplified of course but that means there are probably more real \"beer bellies\" on average in the top beer drinking European countries.... and a lot more \"burgers and fries\" bellies in the U.S. than in Europe. It's more about overall diet and exercise rates than it is total beer consumption.",
"It's not really just the beer. It's the fried foods and other various crap that makes up the differing diets. \"Beer Belly\" is just a colloquialism, not a clinical term.",
"You guys are absolutely awesome. Thank you for all your responses-- you really got me thinking. And an extra thank you to the guys writing paragraphs. It seems topic is more a commentary on my perceptions more so than international beer belly occurrences.",
"I lived in Europe for a few months and I was able walk EVERYWHERE. And vehicle ownership was not as great as it is in the US. If I needed to get somewhere that wasn't walkable I'd catch a bus. Then there was the way they treat food. Refrigerators were 1/2 the size they are in the US. I'd stop each day at a market and pick up what you needed and take it home. Because there was no elevator, I'd carry those groceries up 4 flights of stairs. So I didn't have giant loads - just enough to get by for a day or so. So I didn't \"pig out\" because I would have had to leave sooner and go get more food. Then there was the fact that the food was fresher. Their markets were open air, and the fruits/vegetables needed to be ripe because I was going to eat them that night. So everything was better tasting and believe it or not, more satisfying. It's night and day.",
"Because their diets are otherwise healthier or they do more exercise. A \"beer belly\" isn't really a thing. Beer does have calories of course, so drinking it contributes to having a belly, but there's nothing particularly special about the calories in beer compared to anything else.",
"The beer could be the difference. If the Europeans are drinking beer with a higher abv , stronger taste, and more expensive, that could \"get them where they need to get\" with less calories. But if an American is downing weak low abv for cheap, they would end up ingesting more calories and alcohol which would convert to sugar to fat.",
"I think it may be the walking. A lot European cities have very constricted streets, since these cities are very, very old. Driving, parking, etc. can be a pain. So, walking is the norm. Plus, some European countries don't really have a culture of snacking, so there isn't the constant ingestion of calories that one sees in America. So - it's not really walking - it's more to do with total caloric intake (which is probably lower than that in the US, due to less snacking, smaller portion sizes), and more caloric burn (due to walking, etc.).",
"General obesity is tied to the body converting excess glucose into fat deposits. Americans, on average, are more sedentary than the average European, so someone who overeats and does not exert themselves at all will get fat all over. A male that consumes some excess sugars, but just some, or does actually move around, will only get the deposit in the abdomen. I know some above 30 males that don't drink alcohol at all, but have the \"beer belly\", because they are generally active, but consume a bit more than their bodies use. As you said, Europeans tend to be more active, there is a stronger walking/cycling culture there than in the U.S., which is tied largely to shorter distances and high cost to benefit ratios for owning cars. Drinking culture (going out for a few beers after work, etc.) comes from an earlier era, where most people burned a lot more calories than they do now, because they were working in a factory or in the fields, etc. all day, and they mostly are bread, legumes, root vegetables, etc., so beer/ale was a large component of their daily caloric intake. Take away the manual labor, or the additional work hours that have since been regulated in most industries, but leave the drinking, and you get excess caloric intake, which you can only resolve by either consuming less, or working more, or both. But again, if you are generally active, but consume more calories than you burn, you'll get a fat deposit in your abdomen, which isn't contained by ribs, but is already full of organs and soft tissue, so it will expand. If you weren't generally active, but kept consuming more calories than you use at the same rate, the fat deposits would spread throughout your body. Which they do, anyway, but a little bit of fat in your arms and legs isn't terribly noticeable until it reaches a certain percentage, based on your body structure. EDIT: I forgot to talk about what some others have mentioned, which is that Europeans, on average, eat smaller portions and eat slower than Americans, among other things. Most Western European countries also have fairly strong regulations on food production, and in general don't put as much sugar in their processed foods. Consuming less processed sugar makes it easier for your body to not immediately turn the sugar you consume to fat.",
"A beer belly is just fat. They're not related to the type of beer you do or don't drink (although beer is a calorie bomb). American men are significantly fatter on average than most European nations and are therefore more likely to have abdominal fat.",
"The short answer is you can eat and drink whatever you want, as much as you want, as long as you are willing to work those calories off on the other end of things. There is a big difference between a guy that does 5 mile walk every day and drinks a 6 pack at night vs a guy that doesn't do anything except for sitting behind a computer all day, and drinking that same 6 pack at night.",
"Couple others gave some good reasons as far as being fat/overweight, but I'm gonna give a little insight as to the honest to goodness beer gut. That thing that sticks out like a hill on a guy that looks otherwise, if not in shape, then not out and out fat. Yes, while American men often drink light beer, there's a *specific reason* they drink light beer. I know at least 5 different guys that'll drink a 30 pack of miller light/bud light/coors light whatever their beer is, over a week, then kill another one just on the weekend. Sometimes they'll buy another on Friday and it'll be gone by Saturday. Most of these companies know it too. Watch their commercials, they might mention the calories but two words in particular will *always* be there. \"Less filling\" \"less filling\" \"less filling!\" Because they know you and your buddies are gonna drink a dozen of them apiece over the course of a Friday evening. You wouldn't do that if they were more filling like real beer. What happens when you drink that much carbonated liquid? Bloating. There's a reason gastric bypass patients aren't allowed carbonated liquid of any kind. Carbonation distends the stomach. Now just imagine doing that to the extreme every day/weekend. Beer gut. tl;dr Real American beer guts are more volume than fat. For a lot of American men, beer consumption isn't limited by alcohol, it's how filling the beer is. If the beer company can sell you a less filling light beer, you'll buy more, and drink a lot.",
"Strong, thick beer isn't more caloric than lagers. Beer bellies don't actually come from beer necessarily, it's usually the greasy fried food we eat with it, in huge amounts, every day, and then literally never exercise at all.",
"It's not enough to compare what Europeans and Americans eat and drink. You also have to compare what they do when they're not eating and drinking. Europeans move more, walk more, do more in general. Look at the French: Bread, cheese, and cigarettes galore. But they also ride bikes more, and voila! They don't die of more cancer than Americans.",
"There is also a difference between obesity and ascites-related abdominal distension which can come with liver damage related to alcohol consumption. Many people have a big belly, but it is not related to beer, it is related to poor diet and sedentary lifestyle. The two are a different thing -they look different, and they have a different root cause. [This is ascites]( URL_1 ) , [this is obesity]( URL_0 ). A person can have ascites which gives them a very large belly without having particularly fatty arms, legs, face, or other extremities – the true mark of the beer gut is that it is fluid, not just fat. It is also related to alcohol in general, not just beer. Drinking beer can definitely make you chubby if you were drinking lots of it and you have a high caloric intake and as a result of the combined beer and other calories at a little disproportionate to the output of calories. But that is not really a \"beer belly\", it is a \"caloric overconsumption belly\".",
"The color of a beer has no determination on its caloric value. Exhibit 1 a Stella Artois has about 220 calories, a Budweiser 145 and a Guinness 150.",
"When I left the US I was 182 pounds and I was gone for four months. In the Mediterranean I feel I ate just as much but somehow lost 23 pounds. I am convinced the American food is packed with hormones.",
"[Abdominal obesity]( URL_0 ) is caused by poor diets rather than beer. It is partly mediated by insulin / hyperinsulinemia and impaired fat metabolism. Bodybuilders who inject insulin for larger gains also have enormous guts, contrast google searches for [beer belly]( URL_1 ) and [insulin gut]( URL_2 ). Americans have terrible diets compared to Europeans. Full of sugar, refined carbohydrates, sugar, processed vegetable oils, sugar, fructose, and processed foods in general. Have I mentioned sugar?",
"Mate you havent seen the germans on holiday in their speedos and perfectly spherical bellies",
"Also it's almost impossible to drink the volume of beer light drinkers do with an imperial stout",
"High carb diets or not giving enough times between meals leads to visceral fat, or fat around your internal organs. This leads to beer gut.",
"I'm not a doctor but changes in insulin can affect fat storage in the body. This is typically more pronounced as belly fat in men. Sugars are the biggest culprit and light beers have a higher calorie content which is converted to sugar in the body. This might explain your little theory but please correct me if I'm wrong.",
"I'm on mobile, but has anyone mentioned \"ascites\" associated with chronic alcohol consumption? OP has the quintessential \"beer belly\" in mind, which traditionally presents as fluid accumulation in the abdomen aka ascites. Chronic alcoholism can damage the liver over time, and damage to the liver results in decreased proteins made by the liver which can retain fluid in our blood vessels. When these proteins are not made in enough quantity, some of the fluid can leak out in our gut for example, hence the beer belly. There is no major difference between the damage light and dark beer do to the liver of time, but I wanted to give OP an idea of where the traditional beer belly comes from."
],
"score": [
3674,
1893,
772,
444,
109,
30,
28,
28,
27,
17,
11,
9,
9,
6,
5,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.wow.com/wiki/Obesity",
"http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/249985/view"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdominal_obesity",
"https://google.com/search?q=beer+belly&tbm=isch",
"https://google.com/search?q=insulin+gut&tbm=isch"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
640tfw | Why chemical weapon is considered a red line and use of conventional weapons isn't? | Both cause tremendous suffering. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfygpkn",
"dfygkod",
"dfyjcu9",
"dfyh0wo",
"dfypft3",
"dfyggxv",
"dfystsi",
"dfytqe9"
],
"text": [
"Suffering is inevitable when using chemical weapons, however there's very little suffering when using conventional weapons because of the high chance to kill on impact. Gas attacks were particularly psychologically scarring because the skin blistered, people asphyxiated, and respiratory systems were permanently damaged. Chemical weapons are also indiscriminate weapons, blowing back on those who deployed them and spreading to nearby civilian populations. In WW1, chemical weaponry only accounted for a tiny percentage of the deaths. Thus causing all survivors of chemical warfare to suffer from lung diseases and blindness for the rest of their lives. Thus the Geneva Protocol was formed",
"It all goes back to the geneva convention and hague convention. Basically they cause undue suffering, cannot be controlled and are indiscriminate killers. If you read about WWI and the horrors of mustard gas you would see that chemical weapons really are a line all nations should respect. I recommend dan carlins hardcore history podcast which has an awesome series on WWI",
"You can't aim a gas at an enemy combatant and miss a civilian, and they cause way too much suffering to the people affected. The point of combat is to remove the enemy from battle, not to kill or harm as many people as possible (which is why it's also illegal to attack hospitals, or kill enemies who are trying to surrender).",
"As the others said the biggest influence was during ww1 and ww2 people witness and survive some chemical attacks and if you survive your almost always in constant pain afterwards, a blown off leg or a bullet you can live with, constant burning in lungs and melted flesh thats unecessary suffering. mustard gas, napalm, etc. even if we are killing people if we have any humanity we wouldnt cause suffering or constant torture (cough cough waterboarding).",
"A lot of people with do some handwaving about undue suffering, and there is a little bit to that, but mostly it is about preserving power. A relatively small, poor country, in the face of a superior enemy, can do a lot of damage with chemical weapons. This leveling of the playing field didn't sit terribly well with the world powers, who wanted to maintain their industrial, economical and technological advantages in warfare, so they called them unfair and threatened to beat up any smaller country who thought about using them. Land mines, for example, probably maim and disfigure to the same order of magnitude as mustard gas, but since they require a big industrial base to mass produce, they were not banned at the same time.",
"Yes, but there's an international treaty that specifically prohibits the use of ANY chemical weapons, and a govt using it on its own people, is absolutely a red line I believe any civilized nation should have.",
"By convention, the world's governments avoid using weapons that have a high chance to maim or permanently injure those who survive its effects. Chemical weapons are seen as particularly bad because not only do they potentially cause life long suffering for the survivors, they are also uncontrollable once unleashed, moving on the whims of nature and the wind. Even an attack targeted with the best of intentions to only an area populated by active combatants can easily drift into areas populated by those providing medical care (attacking medics is also a big no-no by convention) or into civilian areas, harming innocent people.",
"There are claimed reasons and there are probably \"real\" reasons. Others have mentioned some of the claimed reasons. I do think one of the real reasons is that they aren't thought to be militarily necessary because they tend to be more indiscriminate than conventional arms. A change of wind can blow a gas cloud into a neighborhood or village that was not intended and so have by their very nature a high likelihood of collateral damage or even friendly fire. It is partially for this reason that modern militaries don't even consider them reliable. Ask yourselves why the Nazis, who gassed civilians during the Holocaust, still didn't use them against the Soviets, whom they hated. They would have used them if they thought they would be effective. So when a military drops gas from a modern MiG fighter rather than their often more deadly other munitions, we know it is not for a legitimate military reason. It very likely for the reason of causing mass casualties, panic, and -- most importantly -- fear."
],
"score": [
27,
9,
7,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6412j9 | Has a political or government ban ever worked? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfyitxk",
"dfyladl",
"dfyirob"
],
"text": [
"Yes, many sorts of bans work pretty well. In the USA it's illegal for private citizens to own or make bombs, and almost none do. Australia created struct anti-gun laws, and they work. The USA banned creating private first-class-mail services, and that worked extremely well for many decades.",
"Smoking bans seem to be working quite well throughout most of the places they're implemented.",
"ask hitler or putin or kim-jong-un Each effectively banned all political opposition. Pretty much worked every time."
],
"score": [
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6413g7 | Class action lawsuits | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfyjhc1",
"dfyjbdn"
],
"text": [
"Class action lawsuits are usually used to allow a large group of people to sue a defendant for an action that affected a lot of people, but didn't severely affect any particular person. For example, if a phone company wrongly overcharges all of it's ten million customers by $2, it's not worth it for any individual to sue but the phone company should still be punished for wrongly taking $20,000,000. The way these lawsuits work is that first a representative plaintiff or small group of plaintiffs file a lawsuit. They then ask the court to certify a class, which means the court will say that the lawsuit can proceed as a class action and it defines what makes a person part of the class that is suing (e.g., you were a customer of the phone company and got overcharged). The plaintiff(s) then have to publish announcements about the class action so that people who have been affected can receive the payout, if any, from the lawsuit. If you are eligible for a class, you are usually assumed to be a part of the lawsuit unless you specifically opt out of it. So if you were one of the people who got overcharged your claim would automatically be litigated for you unless you sent the court a letter saying \"I don't want to be a part of this.\" Typically the only reason to do that is so you can sue on your own later. When the lawsuit ends after settlement (what usually happens) or trial (rare for class actions because of the risk involved of losing a claim to millions of people you have to pay), people who are part of the class usually have to write in to claim their award. The lawyers usually get a separate payment for their work in representing the class as a whole.",
"A person sues a large organization for some harm they (allegedly) caused. The person says \"there are *lots* of people you harmed (a whole __class__ of victims), so I'm taking this legal __action__ in the form of a __lawsuit__ to force you to pay *each of us* for the damage each suffered -- this isn't just about me.\""
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
641dg3 | Why is sexual content (discluding porn) considered inappropriate or adult-only material? | It's not even that bad, people know how conception happens, or at least they should. Why is it considered discretional? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfysheh"
],
"text": [
"This is an interesting topic, and I think the root of this censorship of sex lies in religion, specifically widespread christianity in America. Ever notice how depictions of Jesus nailed brutally to a cross, bleeding, are somehow seen as perfectly fine for a child to see? But when it comes to discussing sex in a religious context, it's taught that sex is bad unless it's between a married couple, and even then it's supposed to be private and only missionary (I'm joking with that last bit, but you get my point). It's similar to how there can be gratuitous violence in a movie, and that movie will still receive a PG-13 rating. But if there is an equally gratuitous sex scene? Even without crazy violence that movie will now be rated R for sure. I'm not sure exactly how sex is handled in Europe, so you should find a European and ask what they think on the matter, I don't feel qualified to discuss that."
],
"score": [
15
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
641eev | 20 years ago, the country was divided by the O.J. Simpson trial. Now it seems almost everyone unanimously believes O.J. really did it. What changed public opinion? | I have been watching the "Made In America" mini-doc on Hulu and have seen all the tension and divide that plagued America back then almost similar to how it is today. I am a 21 year old male who's been raised in Los Angeles all my life, so I was just a baby when all this was going. I just want some insight (hopefully) from any Redditor who was there during this controversial times and who have seen the shift in public opinion from "maybe he's guilty" or "maybe the police were trying to frame him" to an almost one sided opinion "he did do it." | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfyma1j",
"dfyqb0n",
"dfypmgh",
"dfz72ef",
"dfz12bw",
"dfym1qx",
"dfym7dc",
"dfylukh",
"dfym7yk",
"dfymv0z",
"dfylu9u",
"dfynd3s"
],
"text": [
"Keep in mind that a lot of the people who wanted OJ to go free actually believed he did it - that's even the attitude expressed by some of the jurors. The trial became much more about race relations than about the facts of the case, to a lot of people. But since the trial, there's been a civil trial (which OJ lost), about $0 spent trying to find the drug lord hitmen who OJ promised to track down, a book or twelve that have come out (none of which depict him favorably), a conviction for armed robbery, etc. Not to mention, DNA evidence (which was very new at the time of the case) has become a huge part of the legal process - the people who didn't trust it or didn't understand it back in the mid-90's now know just how crazy accurate it is. None of this means that OJ is guilty, necessarily.... but when you put it together on top of what was already a very convincing case, that door of reasonable doubt gets narrower and narrower. Now that emotions are out of the picture and everyone has a clear picture of what's going on, it's much easier to say that the prosecution bungled a slam-dunk case and the defense seized on the race issue to push their guy through.",
"A lot of people who wanted him acquitted believed he was guilty. There's this idea, right or wrong, that if you're rich and white the law doesn't apply to you (see: affluenza, he wouldnt do well in prison, etc). This case showed that if you were rich and black, you too could be above the law. A black man killed a white woman and was acquitted. In a fucked up way, it was a huge win for civil rights.",
"Most people have ALWAYS believed he did it. I remember being in 10th (or 11th) grade in science class and the teacher stopped teaching, turned on the radio, and we all heard the verdict live. I was completely shocked that they came back as ~~innocent~~ not guilty. Watching a documentary on Youtube recently one of the jurors believes steadfastly that the cops framed OJ and that was the reason why he voted ~~innocent~~ not guilty. The jury was shielded from everything we saw from the outside of the trial, and the whole glove incident was just a disaster for the prosecution. He did it, though.",
"The way I saw it the trial wasn't about whether or not he killed his wife, but whether he could get away with it as a black man being prosecuted by crooked white cops. The verdict was proof that white police tampering with the prosecution of a black man actually can backfire.",
"A lot of people didn't understand DNA profiling or the science behind it. I think with time, as the public became more educated on DNA analysis and the science of it, more folks have begun to see the ways in which DNA evidence was essentially ignored by the jury, because they didn't understand it. Lets also not forget that Police brutality and racism in LAPD were widely broadcast and acknowledged by the general public prior to the trial, this only fueled the fire of racial divide. There was very much a sizable population which felt that LAPD were just pointing the finger at a Black man, OJ, because they always have and could. There was a very strong push for the innocence of OJ as he would be among one of the few accused Black men to be successfully defended against our Courts and considering the overt racism of LAPD, it would have been a welcome break from the day in and day out violence against People of Color. There is also the celebrity protection element. People dont want folks they admire to do bad things. OJ was a role model to many, a young successful Black man, getting ahead in a white man's world. The last thing fans and followers want to accept is that their idol murdered his wife and another dude in cold blood.",
"While he was acquitted in the criminal trial, he lost the civil suit. And it probably didn't help that he signed off on (and was paid for) a book called [If I Did It]( URL_0 ) that was ghostwritten by someone else but claimed that he was the author.",
"Common sense doesn't always happen immediately. I also think younger people (like myself) don't recall the racial tension that was going on during the time, that could have influenced the divide. OJ to us was never a celebrity, he was a has-been who murdered his ex-wife in cold blood. So we never tried to defend him or his memory. So, when you don't have that context, you just look at the facts and it seems quite clear that he did do it.",
"Likely the people who supported OJ actually believed did it. Remember the OJ case came right after the Rodney King verdicts which showed police brutality on video and they got away with it in court. This caused a riot. So when OJ was acquitted by the courts, people who were enraged by the Rodney King verdicts felt like they had gotten something back. This corrupt system favored them in this case.",
"Of course, hindsight is 20/20. At the time of the trial, no one was really sure what to believe and those who supported him supported him, and those who didn't didn't. Looking back at the case after 20 years, most people now understand that he most likely did it, not to mention he had the nerve to write a book about it titled \"If I did it\", which is basically just rubbing it in everyone's faces that he escaped conviction after probably committing the crime.",
"And yet there's a lot of people who still don't think he did it - that he son did it, and OJ has been covering for him, a theory which has gained more traction over the years. So perhaps your question has a little confirmation bias in it.",
"In the 1990's a majority of whites people thought he did it. A majority of black people thought he didn't do it. Today a majority of white people think he did it, a slight majority of black people think he did it. Black people's opinion on the subject has changed.",
"Can't believe I'm the first to say this but watch ESPNs 30 for 30 they did called OJ: Made in America. It's a 5 part series but it covers this specifically and it answers it quite well. IMHO the documentary explained quite well that acquitting OJ of the murders was retribution for the acquittal of the officers who beat Rodney King."
],
"score": [
56,
12,
10,
7,
7,
5,
5,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Did_It"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
641ix7 | Why did Assad use chemical weapons to attack his own people? I know he's very corrupt, but what's the point of this? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfyn8eb",
"dfyn8j4",
"dfyr8tj"
],
"text": [
"You're oversimplifying the situation. When you say \"his own people\" you act like they are all the same. Actually there are two groups \"his supporters\" and \"the opposition\", ignoring ISIS and all the outsiders shooting the place up. He used chemical weapons on his political enemies. It would be like President Obama using chemical weapons on a Red State (which he didn't do - just to be clear).",
"He's been waging a war on \"his own people\" for 6 years now. (And he's used chemical weapons hundreds of times before in that time) Partly, he's trying to terrorize his county into submission, and partly just punishing them for rising up against him.",
"He's been doing this for years. It's a cheap and effective way to wage war on insurgents with a huge 'fear factor'. Take a bullet? It's just pain, and you'll be dead in a couple minutes. Take mustard gas to the lungs? A lifetime of suffering, a drain on your side's resources to take care of your crippled ass, and just as certainly taken out of the fight. So yeah, none of this is new. The difference is that Russia needs us to lift sanctions on them in the near future, as the last few rounds of sanctions from the Obama administration had some real bite for Putin and his cohorts. The only major theater of war in which we have (ostensibly) worked on the same side as Russia is in Syria. So in essence, we brought up a tragedy that already existed and threw some missiles at it so that the formerly-secret alliances set up during the Trump candidacy can come to fruition before the direct evidence of treason can be uncovered. TL:DR: He does it to wage war on a budget. The difference is, now we care. The real question is, how long until we drop sanctions on Russian leaders in exchange for Russia taking out Assad?"
],
"score": [
17,
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
64221q | How can judges who claim to be constitutional originalists vote in favor of corporations as people? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfyxoqk"
],
"text": [
"First of all, the Constitution does not mention corporations. What is does do is spell out the right of the people to freely assemble. This means the government cannot write laws barring people from forming different types of associations, be it social clubs, churches, trade unions, etc. A corporation is really an assembly of people for the purpose of transacting business. Just as a trade union can speak with one voice and is deemed certain protections, so can a corporation. Regardless of whether one likes or dislikes the actions or words of a corporation, such as making a movie or drilling an oil well, they have the right to exist under the U.S. law because they are created by a gathering of people for a mutual benefit. If the courts were to pick and choose which type of grouping you are able to be a part of, then we lose a very essential freedom."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
642l3h | How does the Parliament of the United Kingdom work? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfyxyn4"
],
"text": [
"The UK Parliament is divided into two houses - the upper house, The House of Lords, and the lower house, the House of Commons. There are 805 people sitting in the House of Lords. They are appointed, and they serve for life. Legislation can be introduced in the House of Lords, and they can veto legislation from the House of Commons, but in practical matters they don't have much power (The Commons can ignore the veto from the Lords on certain types of bills.) The House of Commons is where the action happens. There are 650 seats in the House of Commons, each one representing a specific geographic area called a constituency. Members of the House of Commons are referred to as Members of Parliament, or MPs. In federal elections, people vote for the MP who will represent their constituency. The party with the most seats forms the government, and the leader of that party is the Prime Minister. The Commons, being directly elected by the people, is directly accountable to the people. They make all of the important decisions. Although on paper Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state of the United Kingdom, the leader of the country is the Prime Minister, Theresa May."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
642pwq | Why are most songs about love? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfyxul3"
],
"text": [
"Because love is a universal emotion. Everybody rich or poor, black or white, male or female has been in love, both returned and not returned. We can all relate to songs about love, so, there you go."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
643eki | The difference between a course offered at a university vs a course offered at a community college. | I have seen similar courses posted and offered in both 4-year universities and community colleges. What is the difference? For example, what is the difference between an 2nd year organic chemistry course at a prestigious university versus one at a community college? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfza140",
"dfz3p55"
],
"text": [
"* the professor will likely be more knowledgeable and have more experience teaching * you'll have access to better resources, like lab equipment * your classmates will be more advanced, so you will likely cover more material more thoroughly, rather than having to repeat the basics * if you are interested in postgraduate studies, you aren't likely to make the sort of connections that can help with that in community college For lower level classes, these differences are unlikely to be very significant.",
"Honestly? Not much. It's just that once you hit classes above a \"sophomore\" level, you need to go to a university. The lower level classes are pretty much the same though, and by pretty much I mean the variation between a university and a CC is about the same variance that you would get from professor to professor anyway. Hell, some professors teach at a CC some days and the university the others. It's also why you can transfer your credits from a CC to a four year university. Source: Went to a community college, learned the exact same things in basic classes as university friends, paid less."
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6449vt | why can you still feel the ebb and flow of the waves when lying in bed after swimming in the waves during the day? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfzee7i"
],
"text": [
"Your body seeks equilibrium. It is always trying to balance your senses out so that you can tune out normal things, and be alerted to anything in your environment that is different. For example you put an air filter in your bedroom and the first few days you are very aware of the fan noise. After a few weeks your wife turns the air filter off in the middle of the night, and you suddenly wake up because something has changed, it's gone quiet. Your mind learns to filter out the sound of the fan because it's gotten used to it. The same thing happens with smells. You put a candle in your room and you smell it really strong, but after a few weeks you don't smell it at all. Then you go on vacation for a week and come back, and you can smell it again. It's one of those reasons why you don't really smell your own home until you've been away from it awhile. When you drive in a car, your body gets used to the forces placed on it as you go over bumps and around corners and your mind eventually tunes it out. Your body is also used to not moving around when you get out of the car, so it doesn't feel weird when you're not driving the car. If you get used to driving at a certain speed, your mind and perception of motion will compensate as well, and then if you drive slower, it seems really slow. Doing 70MPH for several hours on a road trip makes going 40mph inside city limits feel like you are crawling because you got used to 70mph. However, when you go swimming, your body is bobbing and floating around the water, and your mind is trying to get used to this sensation and filter out the motion. Then later when you are still, your body is still getting used to being still again. If you were to go swimming every day, eventually your body would get used to the transition from water, to land, to bed, and you wouldn't notice feeling waves in your sleep anymore the same way you don't feel weird driving in a car, then sitting in a chair at work. But when you were a child, you probably got a little carsick at times, or got dizzy when getting out of the car. But it was so long ago you forget about it. If you spend a lot of time on a boat and get used to the rocking, it can feel strange to step on dry land again because your body and mind were so used to compensating, they cant suddenly stop doing it, so you have a little trouble walking straight."
],
"score": [
13
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
644od6 | Why does Japan have awesome candy? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfzes4s",
"dfze0gf",
"dfzfuds"
],
"text": [
"You probably like them because they're exotic. They use flavors that are more popular in Japan. They eat different fruits and spices that reflect flavor profiles you aren't bored with.",
"That's more of a subjective opinion question as opposed to an objective question. I'm not sure it's a good fit for eli5",
"Try at r/nostupidquestions This is a subjective question, so you are not likely to get a good answer here. A lot of replies will also get swept away by the automod, which is why I am partially rambling."
],
"score": [
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6464bo | Why does America appear to have such a significant opiate problem? | Clarification: I'm British, we have our own issues (we are, to all intents and purposes, the piss artists of Europe), no denigration or inference of superiority is intended. That said; why does such a significant portion of the American population, across class and racial boundaries, display an addiction to opiates and/or meth? Overprescription? Self-medication? Boredom? Abject misery? Is the problem overblown in the media? Is it a bigger issue than generally thought? Why are so many Americans shooting up, tuning out, and dropping off? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfzuago"
],
"text": [
"Much of the problem is a combination of over-prescription and the high cost of pharmaceuticals. Starting in the early 90's, there was a major push by pharma companies to aggressively sell the medical use of opioid medicines (oxycodone and hydrocodone, largely) for the treatment of pain. Previous to that, doctors largely avoided the use of these medications, even when they were appropriate for chronic pain. Companies convinced the medical community that they were safe and effective, and unfortunately they became an easy fix when other treatments (physical therapy, yoga, etc) might have been better choices. Combine that with the fact that the medical insurance system in the US is eight kinds of fucked up. Patients who had developed tolerance and dependence on these medications would find it difficult and expensive to maintain their prescriptions. Turned out that in many areas heroin was cheaper to get than prescription oxy."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
646apk | How does the copyright work in a remix version of a song? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfzv1gw",
"dfzspk7"
],
"text": [
"Unfortunately, /u/Omega_Haxors appears to have fallen for a couple of myths; in particular, \"fair use\" doesn't work quite the way he seems to think. Basically, whether or not something is \"fair use\" is a decision made by the courts on a case-by-case basis: just because one remix was judged to be fair doesn't mean *all* remixes are automatically fair. If we're talking about an artist covering a song recorded by somebody else, that's very unlikely to be considered fair use. Professional artists will generally do the sensible thing at make sure they have the permission of the copyright owner. People like Al Yankovic make *parodies*, which have a much better chance of being considered fair use, since a good parody will comment on and criticize the original (one of the reasons \"fair use\" exists in the first place) and the covering artist will need to put some creativity into it; but even he asks for permission first. OP, if you're asking because you're considering remixing or covering somebody else's song and performing it or distributing it publicly (e.g. by posting it to YouTube), you need to ask a lawyer. If it's for your own private amusement, of course, you can do anything you want.",
"Copywrite has a rule called \"Fair Use\" which allows you to use someone else's work as long as you transform it enough that it's clearly not a case of you just free-booting off their content. Lets plays are considered a copy (derivative) since all the user does is play the content and add very little of their own. Reviews are considered fair use (transformative) since it's not uncommon for reviewers to stop, add their input, and carry on and often don't play the entire work unedited for long periods of time. Remixes were fought for a long time in court since it wasn't clear which of the two it feel into, but eventually the dust settled and it was decided that remixes were a fair use."
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
646iz1 | Why can't people under 16 buy cologne? | Just asking. I always see signs where it says "Keep minors away" in malls where they sell cologne. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfzsnth",
"dfzrwhd",
"dfzs7dh",
"dfzv5p8"
],
"text": [
"Signs like this are not because of a law against cologne sales to minors -- at least, not in any place I know about. The stores are trying to keep young people from making a smelly mess in their shop.",
"Likely reason is either through \"pranks\" or ignorance, they end up spraying WAAAAAAAAAAAY too much. If the store reeks that much, no one would shop there, or at least would buy less, so keep children away is a good idea.",
"They can in many countries. Since the answer to that question depends heavily on the country of your residence, you will get better answers if you tell us what country you are from.",
"Some people can get high off of it. Not sure if you had to be 16 back when I was in school. But in 6th grade back when axe started coming around as popular, My peers would go and inhale the spray through their shirt. Just like pressurized air spray that people use for computers."
],
"score": [
8,
6,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
646sz4 | How did the USA get the "I have the right to be offended and you shouldn't offend me" culture when they have protected free speech? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfzuoap",
"dfzthnd",
"dfzvt2y",
"dfzvdqr",
"dfzvntc",
"dfzvhow",
"dfztmio",
"dfzvbjg",
"dfzv5nv",
"dfzw8vq",
"dfzvfk6",
"dfztgr4",
"dfzw20v",
"dfzw5un",
"dfzuaav",
"dfzvusr",
"dfzweyt",
"dfzwmt2",
"dfztgh7",
"dfzw3u8",
"dfzw11a",
"dfzvo1z",
"dfzvr6y",
"dfzweex",
"dfzwp4n",
"dfzwj4f",
"dfzwpvy",
"dfzwam0"
],
"text": [
"Social media/media has made it appear there are assholes everywhere, when it's just that assholes are the most vocal. The majority of us, I would imagine, would seem pretty normal to you.",
"Freedom of speech only means that the government cannot take away your right to express your beliefs. Other people may pressure you into not expressing your beliefs. When you have people who say offensive things and use freedom of speech to defend themselves, they're wrong because the government can still censor anything without social value or anything inflammatory, ~~or anything hateful,~~ etc. Now, when people in America only want their opinions heard and not the other side's, we take it as a normal day. It's primarily because the US has been a country of combative ideals since the beginning, so people get really emotional over a lot of things. Edit: My bad, hate speech is not restricted unless inflammatory. Inflammatory speech is subject to the Brandenburg test, and so may or may not be restricted. \"without social value\" applies only to ~~offensive~~ expression, and is especially relevant when discussing the Court's opinions on pornographic content. Edit 2: \"without social value\" is for *obscene* expression, generally pornographic in nature.",
"In the US, free speech is enshrined in the Constitution. The government cannot privilege any religion or school of thought over another, it cannot restrict the press, and it cannot put people in jail for saying whatever they want (with limits -- you can get in trouble for speech that incites violence, for slander, for fraud/perjury, or for causing danger by, for example, yelling \"FIRE!\" in a theater just to incite panic, not because there's really a fire). So basically, legally, you can say or write whatever the heck you want as long as you're not lying under oath, lying for financial gain, or lying to incite a chaotic or dangerous situation. As for people taking offense, well, America has a very long, complicated, and often ugly history of prejudice against all sorts of people. People are understandably touchy about a lot of things as a result of that history, though I'd agree that sometimes it does get taken a little too far. The time when people would brutally lynch black men for looking sideways at a white woman wasn't too long ago. There are still Japanese-Americans alive today who remember spending World War II in camps in the Mojave Desert (George Takei, for one). We're still trying to deal with a lot of very hateful attitudes and mindsets, and so when people get offended by things and want them eliminated, it's a part of that larger societal shift. It can be a bit heavy-handed sometimes, but I think that it's not necessarily an evil thing. The other thing is that allowing everyone to have nearly unrestricted freedom of expression means that you get every shade of opinion imaginable, and extreme opinions tend to be the loudest, or, alternatively, the squeakiest wheels get the grease, so when an extreme or just very offensive thing is said, the offended people, unable to use the law to stop hateful things from being said, must use public pressure instead. Without taking sides in the issue, it's basically self-policing by society, since the law says that you can say and believe whatever you want. And if you want my actual opinion, I abhor hateful speech and I can get offended by things people say, but I also recognize that they have every right to say them, but on the flip side, I have every right to tell them why I think they're wrong. So it evens out in the end.",
"As an American, that right to free speech protects my right to tell you something you said was offensive as much as it protects your right to say it. It basically boils down to the old \"sticks and stones\" argument, with a few exceptions such as extreme and inciteful hate speech and [fighting words]( URL_0 ). The big thing that most American students learned about (in terms of free speech and the first amendment) is [the KKK marching in Skokie Illinois]( URL_1 ). Obviously, the nature of their expression is noxious and anti-social - but distasteful is not *illegal*. So they marched, requiring police protection to keep the substantially more numerous anti-KKK crowds from expressing their distaste illegally (physically). The important concept behind all of this is that you can say whatever you want, but I can think whatever I want about it and tell you as much; basically, intelligent, thoughtful people have nothing to fear from a person spreading falsehoods or socially unacceptable theories... ...And given the dearth of intelligent, thoughtful people in the US at this point, maybe the concept is also a little anachronistic.",
"There's obvious hypocrisy in anyone who espouses free speech while simultaneously wanting others' speeches censored, but I think your disconnect is- > Yet, from an outsiders perspective when looking in at the USA, it seems like different groups of people only agree with free speech when it is their opinions being voiced and to silence people who disagree with them - but doesn't this go against free speech, the same free speech they are using? I imagine an outsider's perspective is going to be very limited to what the media is telling them - on reddit, I frequently see things about 'PC' and everything *but*, in real life, in my daily routine, with the people I ever speak to, I've never once met someone who'd advocate any legal restrictions on speech which is what I imagine you're implying (because if you just mean \"some people are touchy and wish everyone would talk how they want\", well, that's just a childish behavior that's inherent in many humans, no matter what country you consider)",
"People who behave like that are actually a small subset of the population. It gets blown out of proportion on social media. Social media gives those people a voice so they get noticed more often. Then when they do get noticed, places like Reddit go off on them because everyone agrees they're annoying. There are more people complaining about the problem than there are people contributing to the problem.",
"Think of it like this: *\"I dislike what you are saying, I really don't want you saying it because it offends me. I will defend your right to say it though.\"* Just because we would rather someone not spout... say, racist rhetoric and hope for a day people no longer do, doesn't mean we want it outlawed. We want the speech gone, but we do not trust the government to do so and we would prefer it to die naturally. The US is a society built on distrust of government: We made our government inefficient so each branch fights the other to make it harder for the government to fight us, Our constitution limits what government can do, etc.",
"Several people have explained how our first amendment only applies to the government, but so far I didn't see anyone explain how we got to the \"right to not be offended\" status. So... Let's travel back in time to legal slavery, and before women's suffrage, and maybe even as far back as handing out smallpox blankets to Indians. There was a lot of bad laws establishing landowners (exclusively white males) as the only people with any legal rights. Period. Well times changed as people slowly realized that treating any human as less than human was reprehensible. (Very slowly... Some people haven't got the memo yet) ~~So laws against hate speech were established. Anything offensive aimed at a particular protected group of people qualified as hate speech.~~ ~~This was good. It allowed people to be backed by the full power of the government when often entire communities targeted them.~~ ~~The mistake was allowing people to take it as far as, \"What he said was offensive to me, it qualifies as hate speech.\" there's a fine line of what should qualify.... And they missed the mark by a long shot.~~ ~~So now offending people in many cases is established as against the law... and~~ businesses don't want to ~~spend money defending themselves against unwarranted hate speech charges~~ *drive off customers*, so they fire any employee that offends a customer. The customer feels this is how the world **should** be, so constantly ~~threatens to use legal action~~ *acts like it's their god given right to get their way* every time they get offended in any situation. There's a lot of people like this now. ~~It's an epidemic, and I think the laws need a drastic overhaul... But our government is only focused on what their owners tell them to focus on... Which is to exploit the people for the profit of big businesses.~~ --- Apparently I was grossly mistaken about \"hate speech\" laws being in america. Puts a large hole in my logic, but it still makes sense to blame it on businesses. Especially with the \"The Customer Is Always Right\" bullshit.",
"What country are you form where people don't want to be offended? Is it Redditistan?",
"I have thought about this one for a long time and it boils down to this... imho... 1. Internet culture. To explain, I don't think anyone knew what the internet would be capable of. We all used it, but for the time (early 2000s) there wasn't lot of communities. 2. Enter the age of the internet war sometime after 2005. Websites began having social conflicts between users stealing memes. I think the main of this conflict was Reddit, Tumblr, and 4Chan. Reddit was also just going through the Digg migration. 3. The meme wars escalate with the parallel rising of third generation feminism, social justice warriors, and flooding Facebook with political garbage during the first Obama presidential run. 4. Once politics got involved in the content wars, everything turned into a culture war fuel by proto versions of SJWs, Black Lives Matter, Alt-Right, etc. The biggest issues that still plague the culture was is hyperbole (over exaggerations). 5. Media saw this as marketable during the years of Obama's presidency and over time it just got worse. That's why we have seen large media shaken a ton after Trump. \"Fake News\" has made a huge wrinkle in media for every one because we really don't know who to trust anymore. 6. Finally, Poe's law, going back to hyperbole. This law essentially defines how people cannot tell parody from extremism which is dangerous. 4Chan parodied social movements a ton but only their worst qualities. Over time, these jokes that are usually going around the net as memes, lose their source. They may get picked up by actual extreme or fringe members of movements, and bam, you get a group of people who accidentally believe bullshit because they think its their \"team's\" bullshit. 7. HOW DOES THIS ALL LEAD UP TO LIMITING SPEECH -- The thing about the social movements going on today is they have a good message. End racism, bring about equal rights for all sexes and beliefs, etc. Here is where it gets funny. 8. The rise of people against free speech -- the social movements mentioned above have the belief that the way we talk about things perpetuates the kinds of changes they want to see in the world. Things have gotten pretty bad where now in New York you can be fined for not referring to someone by their pronouns. People are choosing self censorship to avoid getting in trouble, but it's sometimes like bending over too much for these crybaby extremists. Thing is, again, no one wants to get in trouble. Especially with a group of people who have been known to seek you out just to make you lose your job or something. The American government cannot easily destroy free speech but I do feel there are powers that recognize a way to limit it by influencing our culture and it appears to be working. 9. The ultimate blame is identity politics. People who believe they are owed something or have a right to something just by merit of their identity. Thing is, we all have an identity that we use to define who we are to be shared with other people. The issue became using this identity to get special treatment. Universities and public schools facilitated identity politics to create rules because they don't want trouble from parents or losing students. Now, identity politics is a real power to be feared by people who live under the policies. 10. Tribalism by identity politics -- the real great thing about identity politics and I suppose you could say, identity psychology, is right now it's divided people. You pick teams that match your beliefs. Political leanings, race, sex, or sexual direction groups. Pages on facebook, content creators, etc. They have grievances with other groups that they occasionally complain about and these complaints, existing in the group, make **echo chambers**. An environment where an idea get repeated too much and grows in its communal pathos, ethos, and logos. The thing is, they also tend to go unchallenged because of what can be arguably seen as \"Over Moderation\". Have an opposing view? BANNED. DELETED. HIDDEN. Then you post \"Some people these days. Crazy [descriptor here].\" And its championed. Frightening stuff. It's a crazy multifaceted issue that is still developing today.",
"People think that the freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want with no consequences. On the flip side, people get in their heads that they can say whatever they want and have it be right and truth. This is a much bigger issue than just being offended.",
"Freedom of Speech is only with regard to the federal government. From the Constitution: > Amendment I > **Congress shall make no law** respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or **abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press**; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.",
"This 'culture' is not nearly as common as the internet or media makes it seem. There is also some tasty irony going on when people get offended by others being offended. Free speech is purely about preventing government censorship and doesn't have much bearing on this.",
"Short answer: people within the culture of \"don't you dare offend me\" have every right to protest and demand that they not be offended, that is part of free speech. You may use your freedom to demand that others have less freedoms, if that's really what you choose to do.",
"Politicians in America play in this all the time. They select a segment of society from which they would like to get some votes, then \"champion the cause\" of whatever offends said segment's sensibilities. For instance, Trump used the latent racism and xenophobia of Americans to become President. See: #BuildThatWall & #MuslimBan",
"Internet, industries built on advertising, and boycotts. The internet has allowed for the easy organization of boycotts against advertisers. Most industries are reliant on advertising for revenue. Advertisers don't want to be boycotted and thus won't show ads on any program whose advertisers get boycotted. Programs don't want to lose revenue so they curtail content so as to not instigate boycotts against their advertisers. We now live in culture where most of the media never says anything that offends people, thus creating the impression that offending people is bad. Learning from the media, people now treat offending people as a serious \"offense\".",
"Because many Americans often confuse 'freedom of speech' with 'freedom of speech without consequence'. They prefer the latter. In my experience, I have found that many Americans act on the basis that freedom of speech means that they can say whatever they want and others have to respect it simply because they have a right to say it. Which isn't true! People are perfectly entitled to respond to something however they like. For example: If somebody walks into a room and starts saying horrible nasty things, and the other people in the room don't like what is being said, they all turn their backs on that person. They don't want or have to listen to what they disagree with. So the person who made those initial comments is shunned, and feels *societal pressure* to be silent, because people aren't responsive to their opinions. That is the difference. Feeling shamed into silence or having opinions disagreed with by your fellow humans is different from being stripped entirely of free speech. If they had no free speech, the government wouldn't have allowed them to say those things in the first place.",
"Those two things are completely compatible with each other. As an example, I have the right to be offended by Bill O'Reilly, and I'm perfectly happy to tell Fox news (the network that airs him) that they should not offend me because they're a commercial entity and I will refuse to support them (by way of not watching, and also refusing to do business with companies that advertise on his show). That is my power as an individual. If lots of people do the same, then that does not constrain O'Reilly's ability to speak, just his ability to make money doing it. He's allowed to speak, but nobody is required to listen. What I can't do, and what almost everyone agrees is wrong, would be to pass a law that the government would enforce to make it illegal for him to speak.",
"Human nature. Look at the alt-right movement - one of their biggest gripes is they were talked badly about by those \"liberal elites\". And they're the ones crying about a \"PC culture\" and having to watch what they say. It's hypocritical, but also human nature.",
"Frankly, life is too good here. There aren't enough actual bad things going on. People love having things to complain about, it makes them feel important and we have maybe the most narcisistic and individualistic culture in the world. Hence they actively search out for things to be offended by.",
"The right to free speech in the US means that the government cannot restrict your speech except in very limited circumstances. Additionally, while we are free to speak our minds, we are not free from the consequences of doing so. So while you are certainly free to go into a crowded shopping mall and scream racial slurs at people, you are not free from whatever consequences that might bring, to include other people shouting you down or the mall (a privately owned operation) ejecting you from the premisis.",
"Sadly, it's rooted in trying to stop people from using language meant to marginalize and oppress certain groups, but it was taken too far by some on a high horse, and who ultimately go on to hurt the original cause. \"Niggers are destroying the country\" and \"you're overweight, you should really go on a diet\" are two VERY different points, but the 'snowflake' group sees the 2 as similar, in that they're both simply \"offensive\". So suddenly everything can get lumped into being \"offensive\" so they become equally 'wrong', when they're not the same things at all. It sucks.",
"When you have certain groups saying, \"Halloween offends me\" and the school districts take that away so they don't upset the one mom who doesn't celebrate Halloween. Instead of celebrating the masses wishes they are afraid of liability and kiss the ass of the few so they don't upset that one person, but they have no problem alienating the rest.",
"Americans generally only believe in free speech for themselves, not for people they disagree with. Americans are afraid that others will believe the people they disagree with, so they preemptively try to stifle their speech. Since Americans are hypocrites, they will claim to believe in free speech because the government isn't doing the stifling. However, this is incorrect because the concept of free speech is much deeper than the First Amendment.",
"I think people are neglecting the historical component of this. A lot of this change in public outcry is resulting from the history of treatment of women, minorities, members of the LGBT community in the US. In decades past certain ways of speaking/treating members of these groups was generally socially acceptable but we've progressed to the point where everyone, rightfully so, wants equal treatment not just under the law but socially. That's where things get tricky. People who were previously able to do/say things without worry now can face social backlash for the things they got away with not long ago. For example, when I was a kid (around 11-12 I'm 30 now) it was normal for our football coaches to tell us to \"stop acting like a sissy/girl/pussy\" if someone was being soft or complaining about being sore/tired. Now a coach would get in trouble if they said something like that to a preteen boy. Language like that makes it seem like being effeminate or a woman is outright a negative thing so women or members of the LGBT community would often take offense. We're also now living in an age where members of these groups can quickly and easily find thousands of peers AND be informed of injustices (real and imagined) that occur to members of these groups. So people can quickly pile on through social media.",
"I would like to add something to this discussion. There are a lot of individuals who believe that our right to free speech only falls under the jurisdiction of protections from government intervention. But the principles that were used to found our country were those principles hailed by political thinkers such as bastiat or locke. Following their logic the government has three purposes that lead to the protection of its peoples: Protection from coercion by force, settlement of disputes between individuals(Land disputes back in the day), and protection from foreign enemies. The speech argument would fall under the disputes category because of the changing face of our country and our problems. To say that the constitution only protects us from government and not from each other is to disregard the principles that it was founded upon. We have free speech laws because it is an inalienable right that we should be able to speak our minds without fear of harm. That being said, my personal opinion is that our culture is a dependent one. We depend on the government to protect us, and as such we sling all our problems their way and expect to be done right. This is a silly notion because someone is always unhappy with the results. But hey, as long as we continue to try to create a majority that will be happy with the results eventually there will be no opposition right?",
"My pulled out of my ass theory (like most \"informative\" comments on Reddit) is that it's just the result of rapid cultural change. The US went from an attitude of lgbt people being mostly not tolerated to lgbt people being very widely tolerated over just a couple of decades. I think this large swing in attitude simply got carried a bit too far and now there is a relatively small group of people that are a combination of stupidity and being high on fighting the good fight, resulting in the fact that they are completely unaware that doing things like making \"he/she\" pronouns illegal is insane and undermines every basic understanding of free speech that most of us still have. It's also important to know that the crazies trying to alter freedom of speech are a vast, vast minority. Yes, if you go to the most liberal places around the country, it will be very easy to find plenty of people who are like this, but for every one of them, there are 1000+ liberals who completely understand freedom of speech and know not to undermine it. TL;DR When any large change in society happens, there will be people who take it too far. This is a relatively small group of people taking the rapid social change of the past few decades and carrying it way too far, trying to undermine freedom of speech in a horribly misguided attempt to help others.",
"There is no right to not be offended. It's not wrong to ask people to not be jerks, but you have to understand that they may or may not comply. You don't have the right to have your request abided. The only exception is if the offensive speech somehow falls under anti-harassment or discrimination laws. Hate speech and inflammatory speech (which is very subjective) are not protected. Harassment and discrimination acts are illegal. Basically, the First Amendment is a general outline for free speech, but Court precedence and subsequent laws determine how it is interpreted and applied. From The Declaration of Independence: \"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness\" Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be anything self-evident and our legal history has shown many different sections of society being withheld those rights at various times. My view on society right now: We are becoming more selfish and narcissistic so we think everything revolves around us. We are more offensive because we put our wants/needs as top priority and think we can do whatever we want if we deem it right and just. We rarely think of the greater good since we are operating from a personal, individualistic model. We think we know everything, ignoring the experts. However, society cannot operate this way without falling apart. There have to be some ground rules and a general respect and consideration of others. Truth is truth and fact is fact, regardless of whether an individual agrees or not. Until we can move out of this selfish, individualistic mind set, it will continue to get worse."
],
"score": [
652,
236,
201,
114,
84,
48,
31,
28,
24,
19,
16,
11,
7,
7,
7,
7,
7,
5,
4,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/May-June-2002/scene_rosen_mayjun2002.html",
"https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie?redirect=free-speech/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6477or | Why is mass surveillance by the government on Americans not considered a violation of unreasonable search and seizure? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dfzww3w",
"dg0c3sg",
"dfzyhqr",
"dg0akjj"
],
"text": [
"The legal reason is because you do not have an expected level of privacy while using internet services. Now *you* might think you do, but in a legal since you do not. Because you are using the services of multiple privately own companies to access the internet, you are no longer acting in private, you are acting in \"public\".",
"Imagine that the police think you're involved in a crime and are trying to get evidence against you. The constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure is an individual right of someone who's accused of a crime. The police are allowed to ask you to allow them to search your stuff and seize it as evidence, but they can't force you to submit to a search or turn over evidence without a warrant. And warrants are difficult to get unless you already have some evidence--that's the gist of your right. But imagine they are just asking your friends about you. Maybe they just want to know what kind of person you are, but maybe they are trying to find out where you were on Thursday. Your friend doesn't have a constitutional right against the police, since they aren't under investigation. They will likely comply merely out of a feeling of civil obligation. But if they refuse, the police can get a subpoena. Since your friend doesn't have a constitutional right against telling the police about you (unless they are also involved in your criminal activity--but that's a whole other can of worms), they will probably be forced to talk. (They can argue there's no relevant reason/need for ths cops to need to know what they know about you, but the standard for this is very low compared to the standard for a warrant because the right to not be inconvenienced by irrelevant questions isn't a constitutional one). Now imagine that friend is really just a business acquaintance, but has an enormous amount of very detailed information about what you do and when you do it. They don't feel any particularly strong obligation to have your back and probably don't want to do business with criminals (or by extension people accused of criminal activity). So, they are even more likely to just talk to the police without a court order. Now realize that your friend is your ISP. A company that already ranks as one of the worst companies to do business with in the country. You could die, and they'd only care if it hit their bottom line (hint: it won't). So, many of them are more than happy to comply with government requests for information with a minimal amount of push back. Then the last piece of the puzzle: a secret court. The NSA (the cops in this story) has access to a court where they can get a court order (with that low standard of evidence I mentioned above) and no one but the ISP knows about it. So the ISP can save face (to the extent they care) and also give over everything on all their \"friends.\" TL;DR You don't have a constitutional right to keep your friends from talking to the police about you. The feds figured out a way to leverage your weakest friends to give away all your secrets and keep the whole scheme classified. Even declassified, it never broke the rules. Don't trust your ISP.",
"As I understand it, communications are not considered privileged if they are transmitted across networks that are privately owned (i.e. telephone, Internet). The networks are owned by communications companies who, in their own right, may disclose the contents of messages sent across the networks if so compelled by a court. That court (FISA court) balances the request for search against 4th amendment rights. Encryption helps, but, at this point, must be strong encryption to defeat the efforts of prying [Eyes]( URL_1 ). Groups like the [Electronic Frontier Foundation]( URL_0 ) are fighting to have mass surveillance undone",
"What exactly do you mean by mass surveillance? To my understanding, communication data can be collected and only \"unmasked\" with a court order (FISA or otherwise) unless you are talking (emailing with, etc.) someone already on their surveillance list. Do I have this wrong?"
],
"score": [
27,
18,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.eff.org/cases/jewel",
"https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/02/history-of-5-eyes-explainer"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
649au8 | Why are the people in china not opposed to the media/internet censorship? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg0dh1s",
"dg0dh7o"
],
"text": [
"1. A lot of people don't like it 2. Ignorance is bliss 3. Just like a lot of people don't care about internet privacy \"because I have nothing to hid\" mentality a lot of people don't see the censorship as affecting them because it doesn't change what they would view anyway",
"Let me answer with another question. Why are the people in USA not opposed to the media censorship? The answer is that they (the majority) don't know any better and don't care enough."
],
"score": [
13,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
64ak0b | Why does it seem like no new large cities have emerged in the US lately? (Ones with skyscrapers, etc.) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg0qdiu",
"dg0tc3v",
"dg0s86s",
"dg0mx4n"
],
"text": [
"It really depends on your area. I live in North Texas and we're actually growing pretty fast. Let me tell you about the Frisco area, which is very quickly becoming a large city. Cities in the US had specialized functions. They usually were closely related to certain industries like the railroad, oil, factory work, fishing, or farming. The city's future may be based on how that industry changes and grows. So factories were closing left and right, this caused many midwest cities to shrivel up and die. A city like San Francisco may have started out as this west coast port city exporting Gold from the gold rush and resources coming to and from the other parts of the country. It got bigger and bigger as more people started trying to find work in this city. Eventually that function starts to slow down. But as luck would have it, the computer industry and internet industry started cropping up around San Francisco because of major schools around the area that were fueling the tech boom this caused San Francisco to grow all over again. Let's get back to Frisco, TX though. Frisco was mostly a Farm and Ranch town near a railroad hub. A few families owned huge farm and ranch land. And others worked on or near the railroad. Eventually the railroad disappeared from Frisco. And farming and ranching stopped being so lucrative over time. Frisco stayed small for a while. But then families started selling off chunks of their land back to the city or to developers. The city started getting smart about zoning and growth plans. They able to take old farmland and build hundreds of houses on it. People started moving there because it was close enough to a big city like Dallas, but quiet and safe to raise a family. Plus the houses were more affordable. Now with families came businesses and all this started to multiply itself. So Frisco went from old dusty farmland to a booming family friendly suburb for new houses and commercial districts. Also pay attention to travel. Cities grow and die based on the travel options. Is there a railroad that comes by? Is there a major interstate highway? Is there a port? Is there an international airport? Maybe a military base? All these things can make or break the way a city grows.",
"Jersey City is a now a major grower of tall glass buildings. Every time I drive by another tall tower has popped up, still dark, waiting for the lights to turn on. Not joking.",
"It will fill out some more, like Frisco guy mentioned. But at the same time there is an obvious trend toward people moving toward existing cities. It's expensive to live out in the middle of nowhere, and the cities and towns that have existed in the US for the last 300 years exist much for the same reason they existed 300 years ago - their proximity to water, their geographic ease of access, their climate, etc.. There's tons of room in the US, like, feasibly enough for billions or tens of billions of people. But population trends are predicting 11 billion is where the global population will top out. So new cities are probably not going to happen, because, believe it or not, the relevance of most cities other than Palo Alto California or Shenzhen China is tied to something other than microchips. This all might change with the emergence of self-driving electric vehicles, which could make long-distance commuting over hundreds of miles feasible and allow people to spread out more.",
"The cost to make them can heavily outweigh the projected value they'd bring to the area. Skyscrapers aren't cheap to build, taxes for anybody already living there will go up immensely, property values will go up, pricing many people out of the house they've lived in for years. Slow progress over several decades and large city-wide income is near required for this, with household income discrepancy between high and low being very minimum to properly achieve this goal. That, or rich people making their own city separate from everyone else with a minimum income restriction."
],
"score": [
25,
10,
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
64amyv | Why are companies allowed to put misleading super-delicious-looking renders of their food on packaging and menus? Why aren't they required to put a realistic pic? | Isn't there a law against false advertising? Isn't the concept of getting food artists to make a fast food cheeseburger look like the best thing you'll ever eat instead of a morose processed lump legally dubious at best, if not morally questionable? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg0nwoj",
"dg10yov",
"dg0ybei",
"dg0ocy4",
"dg164bt",
"dg19qai"
],
"text": [
"There's a difference between an artistic rendering and the live product. There are no federal or state legislations that require that the image sold should look perfectly like the image displayed. Now what the product has in it is different, it must contain all necessary items that are advertised for FDA and Dietary regulations to apply. You can't sell things to people without knowing exactly what's in them.",
"In many places the food has to be the real item... but it's kind of like the difference between a model having their makeup meticulously applied for a photoshoot vs wearing it for a day. The burgers are constructed from the real ingredients by artists and presented in the best possible light. They're positioned so that you can see all the ingredients, even the bits that would be hidden in the middle of the burger. See videos like URL_1 (pizza) or URL_0 (burger). It's all \"real\", but it's also the very very best possible version of real. The",
"just FYI all those McDonald's burgers are really original burgers you are buying too, the thing is they use different lighting and they move all content to one side and take photo from the best angle, but in the end it's same burger as you buy, blaming them they are selling you different product their defense works be they just reshuffle content for easier holding in your hand maybe it's same case with many other products BTW all Ikea catalogue is just computer renders and I don't see people complaining about it, same goes for all smartphone advertisements, almost no company use actual products",
"These companies aren't really required to make beautiful food, just provide what they advertise, which is what they are doing. They are showing you all of the items you get. Making it appetizing is the only right thing to do since it's an advertisement.",
"FWIW, I don't mind glamour shots of food used in advertisements; however, misleading food quantities are where I draw the line. If a menu photo shows 15 deep fried mushrooms, but only 5 show up when I order it, that makes me angry. A slight discrepancy in quantity is normal, but not a 66% smaller quantity than is displayed on the menu.",
"Depends on the country. Here in Czechia (and I believe it is EU law) they actually are required to do just that else its considered misleading the customer. Also its about the good will of the company because its impossible to set legally what is still ok and what not I worked for a huge food corp and i remember when the pizza marketing team decided to photoshop packing of some mini pizzas they were bringing in from another country to look LESS rich with topping because the image looked nothing like the real thing..."
],
"score": [
49,
13,
7,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/oSd0keSj2W8",
"https://youtu.be/NFzAPAJWAf4"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
64ay5a | Why is there so much fanservice in Anime and not American cartoons? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg0q700"
],
"text": [
"Anime in Japan covers a wide range of subjects, from very adult themes to kids shows. In America traditionally cartoons have been for kids. This is of course changing somewhat now but as you can imagine it's easier to become a fan of complex well written adult animation show than of a cartoon for kids."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
64bip7 | Why do people tape their laptop webcams when they are not using it? A good amount of my friends do it, whether they are a tech person or not, but I never really understood the point of it. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg0vamv",
"dg0vpsz",
"dg0vk92",
"dg0vbp7",
"dg0wtos"
],
"text": [
"A viral video went around showing exactly how _easy_ it is to view a strangers webcam, I don't tape mine personally cause who would want to watch my face browse the internet???",
"There are many legitimate reasons to tape over your webcam. For instance, if it's a work laptop and you're working from home, but have to dial in to a meeting that involves screen sharing. Well, the conference call program might turn your camera on by default to broadcast your image when you talk. And if you're at home, maybe you're not wearing a shirt, don't have makeup on, or just don't want people seeing how messy the place is. And you don't want to risk the camera coming on when you don't want it to. Taping something opaque over the camera prevents that from being an issue.",
"The have been cases whee webcams have ben used on computer that student have loaned from the school like [for example]( URL_0 ) There exist spyware/walware that can use the webcam and mic to spy on you. But how common they are is another question. It is possible but how common it is is a another question. But the tape block is cheap effective and easy to use/remove. And how often do you use your webcam? I see not reason not to do it if you don't use the webcam often or if you think it looks stupid/ugly and don't car if someone might use it.",
"Big brother is always watching! That and if anybody else hacks your computer they can basically watch you with your own camera.",
"I was RATed a while back and the creep had been watching me for the better half of a year. Now it's always taped.. goodbye Skype"
],
"score": [
20,
15,
12,
11,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbins_v._Lower_Merion_School_District"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
64cat3 | Why do certain uniforms make people appear more attractive? Is there a scientific reason? | So this arose out of a conversation my friends and I had specifically relating to men in the military, firemen or police officers. Seeing these men in their uniforms, we all agreed, made them more physically attractive to us. When they weren't in uniform, even though we knew they still did the same job, that heightened level of attraction wasn't there. Almost every woman I know agrees on this! | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg11cdw",
"dg11dwj"
],
"text": [
"Your brain has essentially been hardwired from a young age to associate these occupations with masculinity and heroism. You always hear about the incredible things these people do, and the uniform stimulates those feelings, thus making them seem more attractive while in uniform.",
"They are the people you get taught will keep you safe. If there's a fire or a scary situation you will be saved, they are good, they are strong, they know how to stop bad things. If you have a relationship with someone like that you can always feel safe."
],
"score": [
18,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
64d3zd | Why are breasts sexualized and considered "private parts"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg1dmd6",
"dg1cg7d"
],
"text": [
"Breasts advertise fertility. Young girls don't have them yet, and as older women lose their fertility, their breasts sag and become less visible. As such, men are programmed to take sexual interest in breasts. Male breasts do not undergo such a change, so the interest does not work in the other direction. Whether it is right or wrong to require women to keep their breasts covered, that is a different matter.",
"It's not really \"ok\" for men to show their nipples. Imagine a man coming to work with no shirt, or a shirt with the nipples cut out."
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
64d5sx | Why was the West so scared of the 'rise' of communism? Why did they go out of their way to fight it? | E.g. US going to war in Vietnam and the UK fighting in Oman to stop the 'spread' of communism. Really ignorant to the topic. Wondering why we were so bothered what other countries did politically. Thanks! | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg196w9"
],
"text": [
"For the same reason Europe united to attack the French after their revolution. When France overthrew the Bourbon monarchy and established the First Republic, a coalition of the most powerful nations in Europe (which were still monarchies) attacked France in an attempt to reestablish the monarchy there. They did this because they didn't want their own people getting any ideas about overthrowing *their* monarchies in favor of the increased power given to the people in a republic. Communism promised more power and freedom to a significant portion of people (and as bad as, say, Russian communism was, people probably were better under it than the Czars). At any rate, whether they actually would be better off or not, the message resonated with a large number of people who viewed themselves as oppressed and therefore the potential seed of a revolution. It was in the best interest of the powers that be to put down any communist revolution, to show that communism didn't work, to prevent any revolution removing *them* from power. (That was the *actual* reason. The *supposed* reason was because they were whatever it was we hated at the time: un-Christian, un-free, un-American, whatever.)"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
64fdxx | Is there a real reason homelessness is still a thing other than "money"? Why isn't standard housing a thing yet? | Like even if you were just given a little 6x6x6 foot space surely that would be better than homelessness Yes, we have homeless shelters in some places but in reality there's a lot more homeless people than those shelters can shelter. also not sure if culture or economics flair | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg1psu4",
"dg1vykj",
"dg1p3m2",
"dg1pgyq",
"dg1qij9",
"dg1ozq9"
],
"text": [
"Because a significant number of voters regard the homeless as being to blame for their own situation and would vote against their taxes being used to give the homeless handouts. The government could afford it, either by shifting spending priorities or by raising taxes. For example in England about 120,000 households a year apply for 'homelessness assistance' and 60,000 of them are rejected. Assuming an average £100 a week rent (reasonable for cheap houses in most places) the bill to house those people would be about £300 million a year, which is small change compared to the total £240 thousand million a year spent on benefits (welfare). But taking that £300 million away from something else voters consider more important will not be popular, and neither will putting taxes up.",
"Bigotry plays a role as well as economics and general bias against the already homeless. URL_0 And that's **just** LGBT+. I haven't seen any figures for races other than white, nor country of origin and religion, but I'm sure they're higher than white U.S. born americans.",
"Apathy. No one cares about the poor and the downtrodden. They are viewed as a burden as they are not earning some rich fat cat money.",
"Homelessness is a hard problem to solve and we can't generally solve it using money alone. Some people homelessness is a cause of their own doing. Some level of self-worth being lacked an viewing themselves as useless. Others it's drug related and they've lost everything to their addiction. Many others still, its simply economic related and they are trying to stay on their feet with 3 kids, a husband and a dog all needing to be fed following an eviction. This is a simple \"1 solution will never fit all cases\" situation and needs to be approached with multiple avenues of attack. Some people need rehab, some people need vocational training, some people just need to be sent to prison and theres always going to be some that just don't want to go and do things for themselves and are pure lazy. That being said, it's bred a lot of apathy for the outlook against homeless. Society shuns them as outcasts due to their stature, and most don't deserve to be there in the first place, which makes sorting everything out that much more difficult.",
"The majority of homeless people are people whose house has been burned down, flooded, has carbon monoxide leaks, lost it and filed bankruptcy, and also it could be self-inflicted such as drug addictions etc. Those people usually don't stay homeless for very long as there are various programs for them to obtain housing. Chronically homeless people only represent 2% of the homeless population and the majority of them have some sort of mental illness which is why they want to live in a cardboard box or a dumpster.",
"> Like even if you were just given a little 6x6x6 foot spaaaaaace surely that would be better than homelessness Who is going to pay for that? That is the question that needs to be addressed."
],
"score": [
9,
6,
5,
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2010/06/21/7980/gay-and-transgender-youth-homelessness-by-the-numbers/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
64fhj5 | Why are there noble ranks? Why wasn't everyone just a "lord," why were there dukes, counts, earls, barons and the like? How did this develop and did the different levels have different powers and responsibilities? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg21t8v",
"dg287cv"
],
"text": [
"In the English (later UK) system, the different noble titles had different origins. That is, they weren't part of a unified system from the beginning. Earl was the oldest title, and dates back to Anglo-Saxon times. The earls were originally basically royal governors of the shires or counties of England. Baron was a Norman French title brought in by William the Conqueror. It literally means \"man,\" as in \"the king's man\"--this title was used in a generic sense for all nobles holding land from the king, but became specific to those who didn't have some other formal title (some of the English earls accepted William as king and retained their titles, while William appointed replacements for others). Thus it became the lowest title of nobility sort of by default. Duke is from Latin *dux*, meaning leader. In the later years of the Roman Empire, *dux* was the military commander for a Roman province. When the Roman Empire collapsed, dukes became local warlords, and later senior regional leaders for kings. The old Roman hierarchy left little impression in England after the Anglo-Saxon invasion, but *dux* was sometimes used as the Latin translation of earl. William the Conqueror was Duke of Normandy (in France) before he became King of England, and for a long time the Duke of Normandy (as an additional title held by the King of England) was the only duke around in England. The title of duke was introduced to England in the 1300s as a grade of nobility senior to earls. Eventually duke became a title mostly used for members of the royal family, e.g. brothers or sons of the king. The titles of marquess and viscount were introduced into the English nobility even later. Viscount originally meant vice-count (count was the equivalent of earl in continental Europe), and was originally a kind of deputy to a count. By the time the title was introduced in England, though, it was just because the king wanted to be able to grant a title more dignified than baron but less dignified than earl. Similarly, marquess (marquis in continental Europe) was introduced in England merely as a title to go between earl and duke, but originally it meant a marcher lord, i.e. the count of a march province. A march province was a province on the frontiers or borders of a kingdom, and a marquis was considered more important than an ordinary count because they held a more strategically important position.",
"It's the structures of a Feudal system. All 'lords' were not equal. At the top of the noble structure would be the king, because it's impossible for a king to manage the entire kingdom himself he would divide it up into natural regions and have a vassal family manage that region from the largest city in that region. Within each region would be districts which the governors of the region would assign some of their vassals to run. Within each district would be municipalities(villages, towns, and smaller cities), and each of these municipalities would have a noble family running it, vassals of the district's ruling family. Then within the districts and municipalities there would be farmland and other natural resources which either the districts of municipalities noble families would have some other noble vassals managing. The noble titles were to distinguish the nobles position in the feudal hierarchy. Different cultures had different names for the level of nobility but the general idea is the same throughout all feudal societies. [Just for some visual assistance.]( URL_0 ) I'm sure it's the same throughout much of europe, but I use my home country because I know the current organization of government is simmilar to how the fuedal system was organized. So each of the regions on the map would have a noble incharge of all the districts, each district would have a nobel incharge of the all the municipalities, which each had their own nobles. So the biggest reason that there were different titles was ego. If you're a noble lord in charge of an entire region or district you would deffinetly want to have a different title than a noble lord in charge of a village with a small brewery and the wheat fields those village peasants cultivated."
],
"score": [
19,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Districts_of_the_Czech_Republic"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
64gs08 | How has human personality changed from the beginning of its history? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg219t2",
"dg21w80"
],
"text": [
"Based on historical data, humans are now, as a species, the most peaceful and reasonable they've ever been, and if that makes the past seem utterly terrifying, that only means you're sane.",
"Watch the videos of the last remaining tribes. They were cut off from the rest of humanity for thousands of years."
],
"score": [
12,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
64gt1o | Why is phi ( φ ) so important to math and the general world? the same goes for the golden ratio and the fibonaci code | i'd always been bad at math, i prefer subjects like history, literature, cinema, etc. i can barely do simple ecuations to find the x and things like that | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg24bsx"
],
"text": [
"Interesting question! Unlike pi, e, and i, φ is not as important in mathematics. φ is a symbol with different meanings/values, so I guess it depends on which one you're thinking of. Since you brought up the golden ratio and Fibonacci, I'm assuming you're thinking of φ as 1.61803398874989.., in which case it really is not all that important, it's just really cool. The golden ratio is a relationship that pops up when dealing with the most basic/simple additive series. Start with 0, then the next number is 1. Add the number before 1 to 1. That's 0+1, which is 1. Now add 1 to 1, that's 2. Add 2+1, that's 3. 3+2 = 5, 5+3 = 8, 8+5 = 13, 13+8 = 21, 21+13 = 34, et cetera. That's the Fibonacci series. Any series that follows that rule will eventually lead to the golden ratio (look up Lucas numbers). [Fibonacci numbers]( URL_4 ) All 3 of the concepts you mentioned are deeply ingrained in geometry. Pentagons are literally just a shape of golden ratios. [Construction of a golden rectangle]( URL_2 ) [Golden rectangle turning into a golden triangle, which turns into a perfect pentagon]( URL_5 ) φ (1.6180339887) is also cool because if you take 1.6180339887 x 1.6180339887, you get 2.6180339887. If you take 1 divided by 1.6180339887, you get 0.6180339887. So φ squared is φ+1, and the inverse of φ is φ-1. Kinda nifty. [Here are the 5 Platonic solids]( URL_0 ) I have found that the golden ratio is related to 4 of the 5 Platonic solids. I still haven't found it in the cube, but I could be wrong. [Golden ratio in dodecahedron and icosahedron]( URL_1 ) [Golden ratio in unfolded tetrahedron]( URL_3 ) Also, Fibonacci numbers pop up in nature often. The number of petals on a flower is often a Fibonacci number. For example, a sunflower or daisy often have 21, 34, or 55 petals. Vinca, larkspur, and columbine have 5 petals. Coreopsis, bloodroot, cosmos, and delphinium have 8 petals. Marigold and ragwort have 13 petals. Chicory and aster have 21 petals. Plantain and pyrethrum have 34 petals. You will also usually see spirals on the bottom of pine cones (left hand spirals and right hand spirals) - the number of spirals is USUALLY a Fibonacci number."
],
"score": [
26
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.technologyuk.net/mathematics/geometry/images/geometry_0185.gif",
"http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fMXHGIVpRgU/TVRrJrH81dI/AAAAAAAAAF8/AWCEha7OUts/s1600/Golden_Ratio_Duals.png",
"https://userscontent2.emaze.com/images/e34651c1-5ded-4b8c-b164-e218856e2608/76a5541f731dd8950596a254a260be33.png",
"http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RLNn8gw2EFM/TnKhgnNCZnI/AAAAAAAAAMQ/H0VS9rbxatk/s1600/Equ_Triangle_GR.png",
"http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XM-St7MMijs/TVSJDQZhaDI/AAAAAAAAAGc/Wym_VTbv0DQ/s1600/Fibonacci_Spirals.png",
"http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-P1gDjuZShWk/TVmAgFhIiwI/AAAAAAAAAIc/D1AYFyXRsic/s1600/Pentagon_Golden_Ratio.png"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
64gwht | the difference between "Innocent" and "Not Guilty" in the legal system | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg22cae",
"dg22795"
],
"text": [
"\"Innocent\" is not typically a term used in the legal system. \"Not Guilty\" means there isn't compelling evidence to find a person Guilty of a crime. The law only cares if you're found Guilty. If there isn't enough evidence, it doesn't automatically assign you as \"Innocent\" (because you might not be innocent...) it just means you are not yet found Guilty (and might never be found Guilty, depending on what kind of evidence there was to begin with - for example, it is difficult to be found guilty of a crime that happened somewhere you definitely were not at the time of the crime unless you were doing it via a proxy agent).",
"Innocent means that it had been proven they did not commit the crime. Not guilty means there might not have been enough evidence present to conclude innocent or guilty."
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
64gx4f | What are the philosophical differences between transsexual and Transracial? Why is transsexual the only one accepted? Why are transrace people not accepted by any communities? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg22cmq",
"dg22coe"
],
"text": [
"Transexual also known as gender dysphoria is generally considered a real thing. Transracial largely exists on Tumblr and among stupid people. You can make certain biological arguments that since people are all created as one sex and our bodies morph during early stages of life that there can be a spectrum for gender, especially considering hormones change people's behaviors, perceptions, etc. But, there is no such thing as being transracial and there is no coherent argument that can be made for it. There is no biological basis for it. It's just nonsense. Transracial people aren't accepted because it isn't a real thing. If someone says they believe they are transracial they are either lying or need to see a high quality psychiatrist for a serious mental disorder. Wanting to be or wishing you were a different race doesn't mean you are or that you are transracial and it is an insult to transexual people who are struggling with serious issues to make such an equation.",
"My guess? Race and sex are very different. There are many scientific studies suggesting that there are such things as \"men's brains\" and \"women's brains\" but no such studies exist for black brains, Asian brains etc. the only evidence that might point to this is mostly considered to be pseudoscience, and is used by super far authoritarian right wingers to justify segregation"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
64isnl | What was the deal with watergate, and why was it such a big deal? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg2g7d7"
],
"text": [
"Watergate was, in my opinion, the biggest scandal in American history. There was a break-in at the Democratic National Committee's headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington DC. The five burglars were caught. It turned out the money they were paid with had some ties to Republican President Richard Nixon's official election bank account. This looked really bad, but it got worse. Some of the President's aides leaked information that Nixon himself personally ordered the break-in. This was investigated, and it turned out Nixon used to secretly record all conversations in his office. Despite his best efforts to delete everything, he was caught talking about the break-in on tape. This mean that the President of the US ordered and paid for an illegal burglary of his political rivals, then he used federal officials to try to cover it up. 69 top US government officials were indicted, and 48 were found guilty. Nixon was almost certainly going to be kicked out of office and sent to prison. Faced with this, Nixon resigned. This was clever because it meant his Vice-President, Gerald Ford became the new President. President Ford gave Nixon a full and unconditional pardon, which meant that Nixon could never be sent to trial or jail for his crime. This was arguably one of the biggest reasons that Ford lost his bid for reelection. It's become the standard for all American political scandals because of how high up it went (the President himself broke the law), the colorful characters (the aide who leaked the information named himself after a popular pornographic film called Deepthroat), and the fallout (many top government officials were found guilty, it destroyed Nixon's career and reputation, etc.)"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
64jsp3 | Why did artists start painting angels with wings? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg2ngm8"
],
"text": [
"> 2 Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. Isaiah 6:2 > The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. Exodus 25:20 The concept that angels have wings of some sort is in the Bible."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
64kl6t | The differences between a teaser, a teaser trailer, and an official trailer for a movie. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg2w2k6",
"dg35jf2",
"dg32pdr"
],
"text": [
"I'm pretty sure the difference is that a teaser doesn't necessarily tell you the date it's coming out, but more just shows you that it is coming or what the estimated year it is coming out is, and it also doesn't always have permanent scenes from the movie while an official trailer is released a few months before the movie and tells the exact date, and usually contains only scenes that made it into the movie.",
"A Teaser is generally introducing the subject of the movie, not so much the plot. It's used for much more recognizable brands, like Superheroes and established series (Harry Potter, Jason Bourne, etc.). It'll contain elements that are obviously tied to that subject, that fans will recognize. Without knowing much about the plot from the teaser, people will begin discussion as to what it might be about. Discussion is basically free marketing. Teaser Trailers can be synonymous with the above, or can be just brief trailers of scenes in the film with no distinct connection between them. Collectively, elements from the scenes will indicate specific things that will be relevant to the movie (usually from a marketing perspective). This would again, include recognizable things (like Q giving James Bond a car, explosions, recognizable secondary characters/items: Dumbledore, Infinity Stones for Marvel, etc.). Alternatively, they may be a short clip of one specific scene meant to draw interest in a plot point. Official Trailers just have more scenes and longer scenes. They give a little bit more about what to expect from the film, which also helps show off the visual appeal of the film from a CGI, costume work and/or cinematographic perspective. I don't believe there are official definitions.",
"The one thing you need to know is that there are no official definitions of those terms. They're used very freely by consumers and marketers alike. They're almost interchangeable with one another however there are patterns that tend to appear in each. A teaser can range anywhere from 10 seconds to 2 minutes. It usually shows very limited plot information and mostly showcases the design, aesthetic, title, and release date of the film. These are released several months to a year before the film is released. A teaser trailer can be synonymous with a teaser. Generally, a teaser trailer is slightly longer and might give away a few more plot points. An official trailer is the final and main trailer for the film, usually 2-4 minutes long and released within 3-4 months of the films release date. This gives away the most plot details out of all the teasers/trailers and is shown before other movies at the theater."
],
"score": [
21,
16,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
64kzya | Why is Braille just a bunch of dots instead of the actual letters just protruding out a bit? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg2yeqa"
],
"text": [
"The dots are easier to differentiate from one another by touch than shapes are. Take the letters O, C, G, D and Q, they are all round shapes with slight differences and would feel very much the same, but they're respective [Braille characters]( URL_0 ) are very different to the touch and therefore easily recognizable. You also don't have to worry about different fonts, upper and lower cases, or the character size when everything is standardized like with Braille."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.access2print.co.uk/wpimages/wp4d67944d_06.png"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
64ljzi | What was happening in America around the 15th Century? | I'm young, English and ignorant and I have zero knowledge on this. Was much documented? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg330ay",
"dg34opt",
"dg34dy2"
],
"text": [
"The first wave of colonization began and the natives got royally fucked. Diseases like Smallpox, Typhoid Fever, and Measles devastated the native population who had no natural immunity to it. There was estimated to be at most 90 millions Native Americans scattered across the Americas, and many as 90% were killed off by disease alone. What was left of the natives were often enslaved or driven off by the technologically superior European Settlers who arrived in droves to either escape persecution or make money. As for records there are some, but almost entirely from the European side of things. Priests and scholars were in short supply in the New World and much of the Native documentation was destroyed and or considered heretical.",
"By 'America' do you mean 'the combined landmass known as America'? Do you mean 'the territory of the future United States of America'? Because the answer is going to be very different in each. Furthermore, you're asking a very general question that really can only be answered in the most general terms. Nonetheless, I'd direct you to r/AskHistorians, which can offer more detailed answers on this front. One of the key evens of the 15th century was when, in 1492, Columbus landed in the Carribean, and initiated contact between Europeans and the natives of the Americas. In Meso-America, in 1426, the Aztec 'triple alliance' had managed to establish itself and ruled the Valley of Mexico, effectively from the city of Tenochticlan. In South America, the Inca Empire was also establishing itself, and taking control of areas up and down the Western coast of the continent. Meanwhile, in Eastern north America, the Missisippian culture was flourishing. Our records on this time are...limited, and most of what we do have has come via European conquerers and colonizers, and have to be interpreted in light of what we do have. If you're curious about this period, then the [Wikipedia page]( URL_0 ) is always a good place to start. It's not going to let you be an expert, but hopefully it'll be enough to give you a baseline about what was happening in the Americas prior to the Columbian contact.",
"There is a book entirely focused on this that I highly recommend. It's called \"1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus\". I read it awhile ago, but one of the biggest takeaways for me was how many people there were before the population was decimated by disease brought by Europeans. We think of North America being very sparsely populated, but that's because by the time most places were reached by settlers, the number of natives was a fraction of what it once was. One thing that was speculated was that the giant hordes of Buffalo out west existed because the population of hunters had been massively reduced in the preceding centuries."
],
"score": [
12,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_era"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
64n8io | How/why do names become considered "old fashioned"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg3lqgo"
],
"text": [
"I read that the usual trend in baby names is that first a new name is used by the rich. Then the middle class copy them because it's seen as a bit of an aspirational name, then the poor copy the middle class. Then the rich and middle class stop using it because it's become a poor people name. Then the poor stop using it and it becomes old-fashioned. Then at some point the rich pick it up again and the cycle repeats."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
64oyt7 | Why are social workers known for making low wages despite their university education? | I talked to a few social workers at a call centre fundraiser and they said , "You know, social workers don't make a lot of money". One worked with street youth and has a Masters degree. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg3xw3u",
"dg3x2se",
"dg3wzg5"
],
"text": [
"The real issue for social workers is the same for teachers and other government service employees: their job does not generate profits. Why do bankers and engineers make so much money? It's because their work directly generates profits and lead to organic growth for their employers. You can pay an engineer $150k a year and he will earn the company $1 million each year. Also, as his skills grow and he makes bigger impacts, you can increase his pay as his profit generation increases. At some point he is bringing in enough that you can afford to hire another engineer and continue the cycle of growth. A social worker, on the other hand, does not generate income through their work. So, how do they get paid? They are funded 100% by the government as part of the annual budget. This means there is a set amount of money each year to pay for social workers, regardless of their success. Unlike a private company, social workers cannot grow their budgets through successful execution of their job. This means the social work program is always wrestling with the decision to pay current employees more or to keep wages stagnant and hire more social workers. Typically, the government chooses to increase the number of social workers as opposed to increasing salaries. So long as there is a huge supply people willing to accept and work for those stagnant wages, then the status quo will remain.",
"Social works have a lot going on pushing down there pay, here's a few examples: Social workers and programs they do and to employ them often have small budgets. That means hiring less people, and less money, to try to get the work done. They simply aren't funded enough to have a larger staff and pay more. They have to get as many people as they can, as cheap as they can and within budget. So people won't be getting paid much, and budgets are so low, you don't even get enough people. Second, the field is over saturated. A lot of people are interested in this job, which means its pretty competitive. The oversupply of people allows them to push the price down, but its already down as above. Third, since the two above things happen, you end up with a situation where only the best of the best get the limited amount of positions available. Someone with little experience and a bachelor's degree is competing with an experienced person with a top notch masters for the same position, because it may literally be the only position open in a given city, clearly, the better more experienced person is gonna get the job, and at this point, is obviously willing to accept the low(er) pay. ... so the reason people need a huge education and experience isn't that the job needs it, its that you need it to even be in the competitive range of other applicants since there are so little opportunities, you need to be the best",
"In most countries, wages are not set only by education level, but also by *the law of supply and demand.* Since a lot of people are willing to do these jobs for low pay, nothing forces the agencies to raise the salaries. They'd rather hire more workers (thus serving more clients) than give raises to fewer workers."
],
"score": [
10,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
64ozvl | Why are puzzles like sudoku common in newspapers but they don't print math equations and problems for people to solve? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg3x809",
"dg44bj5"
],
"text": [
"Because of the audience you're able to address and please. A sudoku has fairly straight forward rules that reasonably anyone 10 or older can understand and follow. How far you get depends on the difficulty of the puzzle and the strategies that you've developed, but everyone can give it a good shot and tease their brain for a bit. On the other hand; an algebraic equation requires a lot of not so straight forward rules and techniques you'd be unlikely to think up on your own meaning you've successfully filtered the population into one of three categories: 1. I don't have a fucking clue what I'm doing 2. I'm learning this in class right now and this is highly relevant 3. It took me 3 minutes to remember basic math and then 30 secs to solve. Then there is the validation part; if you've successfully solved a sudoku or many other puzzles commonly found in the paper or a magazine you don't need an answer key; you can check your work yourself. For a math equation you require an answer key and an undefined amount of space for a proof in the inevitable event someone calls your answer wrong.",
"Because gamification is a massive part of modern society. Converting traditional problem solving into something game-like is more engaging to the general public. Just look at all the [instagram posts like this]( URL_0 ). It's just a standard maths question which many young people would not find interesting at all but because they've used images young people can relate to, they get thousands of views/comments. *side-note: I find it hilarious how many people still get the answers wrong but they're all adamant they got it right and everyone else is stupid for not saying the same answer as them.*"
],
"score": [
22,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/11/04/14/3A10B80D00000578-3905480-image-m-10_1478270652048.jpg"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
64piiv | Why was OJs trial on TV? Will Cosbys be on as well? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg41bzb"
],
"text": [
"The judge lifted reporting restrictions, if the judge does so in the Cosby case it probably will be as well, but due to the nature of the crime and the vulnerabilities of the victims it is highly unlikely that reporting restrictions will be lifted."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
64qckh | Why do people from the US never identify with English culture? I often read about Italian-American, Irish-American, Chinese-American, you name it, but not a single time have I read someone proud of her/his English origins. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg47rsh",
"dg4669f",
"dg4dn95",
"dg4bcb9",
"dg49r83",
"dg487f0",
"dg4egfj",
"dg45u18",
"dg48d9t",
"dg4em8a",
"dg469ny",
"dg4g7d2",
"dg4crz1",
"dg49ffc",
"dg4c5qf",
"dg4gqc5",
"dg4et9q",
"dg46988",
"dg4dhmu",
"dg4xvci",
"dg478an",
"dg46uwu",
"dg4acez",
"dg4il58",
"dg45vw3",
"dg4i6t2",
"dg4alwc",
"dg4s392",
"dg4et8m",
"dg4cczw",
"dg4npr4",
"dg4vujz",
"dg4z56c",
"dg4yb7b"
],
"text": [
"Well, I suppose I am well-suited to answer, as my mother was English. 1. English is sort of the default origin. It is just not remarkable in the US. 2. There was never a huge 19th century immigration wave, like with so many other immigrant communities. So, there was never really a time when immigrants from the UK were living as a seperate community. 3. Most Americans of English origin have ancestors that have been in the US for so many generations that it isn't really meaningful.",
"**TL;DR**: *A lot of time has passed, it's kind of the \"default\" and so is unremarkable, and English and Americans have the same basic appearance.* The time part comes because the last major emigrations from England were in colonial times, well over two hundred years ago. That's somewhere over 10 generations - most people stop talking about that sort of thing two or sometimes three generations back at most - and unless you're a family tree hobbyist that has a key interest in your own origins, it's just too many generations back to have much relevance. So you denote yourself as American, and your connection to the \"English\" way of life has since long declined and been replaced with your own country's self-created culture. That factor changes if, say, your grandma's Italian, and things like cuisine and the level of closeness that you share with your family can be a huge part of your identity. That makes you different from most Americans, and so it's going to come up in conversation. The appearance part comes because you look the same as the bog-standard American if you're of English ancestry. You're not a visible minority with oriental folds in your eyes, very distinctive skin colour or hair colour or hair curliness, or other highly visible traits, so it's not something you really talk about.",
"Hi, pleased to meet you. I'm an American with English heritage. :D I always knew about it, but never really pointed it out until I moved to Japan, where lots of people needed help sorting out the fact that they'd meet Americans who didn't seem to have common national customs. Explaining that my family is partially British went a long way in explaining why my family has certain customs that other Americans in Japan might not. Now that I'm back in the US, I have to break my habit of explaining peculiarities of my family away because here, when you say your family was once British, it tends to come across as if you're trying to establish an air of authority, superiority. Meanwhile, my British wife has anxiety about her place here, because she went to a high school where most of the students were American expats upset about the fact that they were expats ( so they picked on anything that wasn't American--like her ). She came away from that school sincerely believing that Americans are strongly anti-British. Meanwhile, she gets subtle benefits all the time in the US owing to people's hearts going all fluttery when strangers hear her accent. The Brits used to be in charge and--at least inasmuch as interactions in daily life inside the US are concerned, that still matters. So much so that claiming British heritage in the US when you're not literally British in the present tense is a little like claiming aristocracy when everyone can plainly see you're not aristocratic. For better or worse. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯",
"Actually, most Americans don't bother identifying with their ancestral culture/nation. Using the compound nationality is the exception, not the rule. Americans that do this fit one or more of these criteria (generally speaking): 1. Nationality/ethnicity faced substantial discrimination during large waves of immigration in the last century or so. This is true of Italians, Irish, and Chinese. 2. Recently immigrated (1-3rd gen). Such Americans may be actively retaining practices, traditions, language etc.., of their old country. 3. Non-western european race is visually obvious, as in asians. But you can't assume it here, either. Lots of racially asian American families have been in the US for centuries and may or may not feel any strong connection. But they may continue to identify as Chinese-American (or whatever) simply for the reason that they face discrimination and stereotypes and need to combat that by asserting the normality of ethnic and cultural blending. Americans of English descent, like myself, are a lot like the 3rd category minus racism. Both of my parent's family names are super-duper English. But that was ~5 generations ago. I would never identify as English because I'm not English in any way. I'm American, like my parents and their and theirs. English culture is great, and it's interesting to reflect on the history, but it really has very little to do with who I am as a person.",
"During and after the revolutionary war the English colonists began to see themselves as \"American\". Crown loyalists were seen as traitors to the new country, so it was in the interest of self-preservation to distance ones self culturally from England. In this sense, many Americans of English descent see themselves as the original Americans, and do not need to hyphenate their identities in the way other groups of national/ethnic origin do. There is a somewhat pejorative name for this ethnic group used in America -- White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestants or [WASPs]( URL_0 ). While they are distributed fairly regularly throughout the country, they can be found concentrated in certain regions, particularly among the 13 original colonies, and especially in the region of New England.",
"English isn't seen as exotic, everyone I met in the states who claimed Irish heritage or whatever seemed very proud of it, like they were a wee bit special. As the top comment says, it's so common it's irrelevant.",
"Because the largest ethnic group in the US is [Germans]( URL_1 ), who largely [hid their ethnic origins]( URL_0 ) during one or both world wars, so the default culture is a sort of non-German general European, today. > During the first world war, parts of America grew hysterically anti-German. Some Germans were spat at in the street. The teaching of their language was banned in schools. Sauerkraut was renamed “liberty cabbage”. German books were burned, dachshunds kicked and German-Americans forced to buy war bonds to prove their patriotism. When New Ulm, a predominantly German town in Minnesota, refused to let its young men join the draft, the National Guard was sent in. After the war, German-Americans hunkered down. Many stopped speaking German and anglicised their names. > The second world war saw less anti-German hysteria, although some 10,000 German-Americans were interned as enemy aliens. President Franklin Roosevelt conspicuously appointed military commanders with names like Eisenhower and Nimitz to fight the Axis powers. But the Holocaust gave German-Americans yet another reason to hide their origins.",
"Because America moved out of their parents and slammed the door screaming \"I never wanna see you again! You suck! I'll make it in my own!\" And boy did they. Grew up to be a country of their own. Without help from mom and dad which they beat in a fight soon after. Sometimes dishonouring your family can turn you into a powerful thing.",
"Seems like good answers here re: why many people don't identify with British culture, but I've also known plenty who do. Mostly they're only one or two generations removed from actual residents/citizens of England (which supports the explanation in terms of time since emigration from home country), and they simply love their tea time with crumpets, or British pop culture, or queen, or...etc.",
"If I were to claim my \"English-American\" heritage, I'd feel pretty fake about it. The last of my English ancestors came here before 1800 and the vast majority arrived between the 1650s and the 1770s. There's no real connection there for me. My wife on the other hand is half Swedish, half Irish. Her immigrant ancestors were her great-grandparents. It's a lot more tangible for her. Her parents knew them. There are still pictures and other momentos from them around the family. It's still a big deal in her family. Plus there were a few of my ancestors of English heritage who fought in the Revolution, so I doubt they wanted to identify as \"English-American\" after that.",
"I've heard plenty of people claim English heritage. Mostly when describing a mixture of backgrounds, like, \" my mother is French and English...\"",
"I'd also like to add that English ancestry is a bit fuzzy in itself, with a long history of being invaded and having its own \"native\" people displaced. Vikings, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Normans.. all influenced English culture. So while I am an American with the majority of my immigrant ancestors coming straight from England, my [Genetic Ancestry ]( URL_0 ) has me at a whopping 4% English, and a completely unexpected 42% Scandinavian. So my \"English\" forefathers weren't actually all that English to begin with! But I won't let that keep me from my tea time.",
"Honestly ill never understand why people are proud of their ancestry. Its like saying youre proud of your heught or proud that you have five fingers.",
"Probably because the majority of the country has no roots in England and those who do have been here for hundreds of years. The Italian-American, Irish-American, ect populations generally immigrated at later dates than the English, not really surprising that families who came over during the late 1800's to early 1900's identify with their ancestors more than families who immigrated much earlier.",
"I do celebrate my English heritage, as do many others. But history muddles what it means to be \"English\" when so many people from that region actually turn out to have Welsh, Scottish or Irish heritage. In addition, many German names were \"anglicized\" in the 18th, 19th, and even 20th centuries here so immigrants could blend in more easily, in the face of anti-German prejudice. (Benjamin Franklin was a noted anti-German bigot.) I think this mixed bag of parentage diluted the identity of English heritage for immigrants. But yes, many of us celebrate our ancestors from the \"Scepter'd Isle\" and will wave the [Flag of England]( URL_0 ) (which is NOT the Union Jack).",
"> ELI5: Why do people from the US never identify with English culture? What? We speak english. We study english history. We study english literature ( shakespeare, romantic poets, etc ). American history begins with english history, unless history curriculum has changed in recent years. From the british royal families to henry hudson to the pilgrims to whatever. Of course we study other european, native, etc stories but they are secondary to the english core of american identity. > I often read about Italian-American, Irish-American, Chinese-American Because they were \"immigrants\" to america. They are trying to become americans. English-americans are americans. English americans created america. English-american is the default. Lots of americans do. English-american ( and anglicized scots-irish ) culture is american culture. 4 English 24,509,692 8.7 % 5 American 20,188,305 7.2 % URL_0 English-americans identify as either american or english-american. > but not a single time have I read someone proud of her/his English origins. What? English origins = American origins. \"That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. \" URL_1 Most of the founding fathers were proud of their english heritage. In short, there is no need for \"english-american\" because the default american is english american. George Washington was as \"english\" as King George. The pilgrims were english. We speak english. All our documents are pretty much in english. What more english-pride do you want? We tell italian-americans, irish-americans, chinese-americans to SPEAK ENGLISH when they arrived on american shores.",
"It's because the people whose family came from England have been here for centuries while Italian, Irish, Jewish-American immigrants have been here about 150 years",
"I think those have always been considered minority groups since the country's founding so unless specified it's generally assumed.",
"Speak for yourself mate. I live in California and I have plenty of friends that are proud of their English culture.",
"Another thing is that when white people act proud of being white, some people instantly relate that with nazis and the white power bs. In America, you can't really be proud of being white or you're a racist. It's fucked up. You have to make being white into a joke about star wars or frappacinos, you can't just be happy to be yourself... if your grandparents or parenrs are from a light skinned country and you show some pride, people get edgy.",
"It likely has to do with the United States having been British colonies. Thus we share a common culture and language with a bit of variation due to the desire to be different. I don't think it as much that Americans despise their English heritage as much as they feel there is no need to call them British-Americans when our native language is English. Nor do we call ourselves European-Americans because my kids heritage is a mix of Irish, German, Swedish and English.",
"I agree with the other commenter that said that it is partly because the last mass migration of brits to the us was during the colonial era, so they basically just became the wasps that were the default white people in America. With the other groups like the Irish or Chinese, they came over in large groups and started enclaves which preserved their culture and heritage in America whereas brits who have come here came in smaller numbers and basically assimilated with the mainstream white Protestant culture.",
"Here is Australia we acknowledge our English culture but not much. We still identify as Australian.",
"I was born in England, moved to Chicago when I was 21 and married my American wife. My kids will be identifying as English-American.",
"Because it's assumed you have to look white and pale and have an english-sounding last name (and I mean english-english, not o'something or mac'anotherthing) to be American. If you don't, you need to explain your origins. Hence \"Italian-american\", or \"irish-american\".",
"Are many Americans actually aware that English and British are different things? Also, I see lots of reference to Scots and Irish but very little references to the Welsh - are many Americans aware that Wales is also part of Britain and the UK? Saying that, Epcot staff seem to have prominent Welsh dragon flags on their shirts...",
"Because the ignorance of the Millennial generation is that all \"white\" people are the same. I actually got into an argument with someone claiming that there are no ethnicities for white people, they're just all white. I brought up Irish, Dutch, Scottish, German, Swedish, Polish, French, Welsh, Norwegian, etc, but was still met with the \"Nah they're all just white people\" answer. Then when I pointed out that if this same logic was applied to asians, Latinos, or middle eastern people, etc then people would be offended and insist they're not \"all the same\" and it's wrong to say that ( Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Thai, Vietnamese, etc ) are all just asians with no separate ethnicities.",
"Clearly you've never been to Virginia. There are families here that identify (only partly in jest) as Tories.",
"Because the English who came here aren't degenerates from a third world country and they integrate like immigrants should.",
"I am personally very proud of my British heritage, but yea a lot of people here don't really seem to care that much about being British",
"When I asked my parents why we don't celebrate anything to do with our heritage, my mom replied \"we moved here for a reason\" Idk if it adds to the topic, but might have something to do with it.",
"Because I consider myself American, end of identifier. I don't need to reference any part of my genetic or cultural heritage because it is secondary to my current state of being. I don't need to call myself English American or German American or French American or Scots American, I'm just American. I think Americans of other racial backgrounds not following suit is one of the biggest problems facing America, because it stifles the formation of a unified national culture. Yes you can be informed by the cultures of your ancestors, but you shouldn't shackle yourselves to them.",
"Good question. I never thought of it like that. I admit that I have much more interest in England and English history for quasi-patriotic reasons than I have for any other country. But a lot of time has passed. From the time of the very first settlements in the early 1600's to the revolution was almost 176 years. That is a long time. And then the Declaration of Independence and the War of Independence. That sort of made us a separate nation. I feel some closeness, but I am perplexed why seemingly reasonable people would have a monarchy; it just doesn't make any sense to me. That's just how I feel. It has no intellectual value, but it is how I feel. So I am close and I am not close. And I believe that it is how people feel that defines a nation. And I bet most Americans feel the same way.",
"Most of us (our ancestors) chose not to identify as English. We purposely created and fought for a new country so we could be what we wanted. Americans are self made. We created our identity so we would not be like the English. Now, there are certainly people that have recently come to the USA that would identify as English. The rest of us do not feel ties from 200-300 years ago. So unlike bigger ethnic groups that moved at one time period, there is no space that they can retain their culture. Those ethnic groups separated themselves via neighborhoods. They stick together and make time to celebrate both American and their cultural heritage. Mostly though they would still identify as Americans over their ethnic group. Being American has a strong history of choosing not to be English. So it is not something you see because American culture celebrates our independence from England. You can't celebrate a culture you're purposely rejecting. Even if only our ancestors were fervent in their rejection. They just don't go together. We no longer have a grudge but it's just uncomfortable to acknowledge both cultures at the same time. TL;DR Americans chose to not be English so English culture is at odds with our created culture structured around independence."
],
"score": [
1224,
1031,
212,
171,
131,
47,
45,
41,
35,
30,
23,
16,
15,
13,
11,
10,
8,
7,
6,
6,
5,
5,
4,
4,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Anglo-Saxon_Protestant"
],
[],
[
"http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21642222-americas-largest-ethnic-group-has-assimilated-so-well-people-barely-notice-it",
"http://names.mongabay.com/ancestry/ancestry-population.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://i.imgur.com/6NwNaGa.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_England"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States#Analysis_by_2000_Federal_Population_Census",
"https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/02/swarthy-germans/48324/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
64qd9g | Where does the British royal family get all their money from? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg460rn"
],
"text": [
"The British government leases certain lands from the royal family for government offices and parliament among other services. In exchange, the royal family is taken care of by this 'Crown Estate', which acts as a semi-independent corporation that reports to Parliament and pays most of it's income to the state, other than the maintenance and living expenses of the properties, their caretakers, and the monarch. You can look at it two ways. You could feel like an anti-monarchist that those lands were always the state's lands and never the Monarch's, and that leasing them to pay for the monarch is simply enshrining a tax to a higher social class. Or you could feel like a monarchist that lots of people own land, and that the monarch shouldn't be denied properties that they owned directly, rather than those owned by other property holders in the state like nobles or farmers. Either way, the Crown Estate pays their expenses and gives the rest of their annual revenue to parliament."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
64qhxn | Why do pharmaceutical companies air commercials for prescription drugs when laypeople can't actually directly buy these products? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg46s69",
"dg46wau"
],
"text": [
"Because they can ask their doctors for this particular med. Many illnesses have a spectrum of drugs that can potentially treat it. And in many cases, whether drug A or drug B will work for you is just a complete gamble. A patient asking for a particular drug by name can help influence which drug a doctor will prescribe them. Obviously not to the point where you are getting a med you don't need (well, if everything works correctly). But if the doctor has diagnosed you with illness Y, and drug A and B have equal chances of working for you, drug B being named by name, can be that little nudge that is needed for drug B to be given.",
"This doesn't happen in the EU, and is banned by law across the entire bloc. It is, as far as I can remember, banned in most countries except for the US and one or two others. The reason for it happening is twofold. Firstly, patients request particular drugs from their doctors if it is advertised directly to them. Even if not requesting a specific drug from the adverts, they may request a particular property of a drug - for instance, having seen an ad for a non-drowsy variant of a drug, patients are more likely to ask questions about whether their medication will make them drowsy, steering the doctor to prescribing the drug that was advertised. Benefit: More $$$ from the doc, who prescribes a drug based on patient demand to keep them happy, rather than what he or she maybe would otherwise recommend. Secondly, drugs may be advertised in such a way to make people aware that they might have a medical condition. If an ad plays for a drug which claims to cure unending ennui and existential crises, patients who previously accepted those things as part of the human condition might well visit their doctor to discuss their issues and ask for a prescription for the drug. Benefit: More $$$ from the doc, and a patient who now wants your medication long-term."
],
"score": [
14,
9
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
64r8ga | does a 'religion' become classified as mythology once that specific civilization collapse ? | so when it comes to ancient religions and belief systems eg: ancient [insert long dead civilization] , we tend to classify those as mythology, so would we end up classifying current main religions as myths only after a collapse in the current cycle of human civilisation ? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg4ewqo",
"dg5gob7"
],
"text": [
"So there's a difference between religion and mythology. But it's not that religions are practiced now and mythologies were practiced then. It's that a mythology is one aspect of a religion. For example, when we talk about ancient Greek mythology, we're not talking about the whole religion. The whole religion included ritual acts like sacrifices, mystical experiences like oracles, and a ton of other practices and ideas. The mythology is just the meaningful stories that were part of that religion. Similarly, Christianity has a lot of parts. There are rituals, moral practices, hymns, holidays, and so on. All of those make up the religion. Christianity also has a mythology: the meaningful stories that are part of that religion. The crucifixion and resurrection are part of the mythology of Christianity, but that mythology isn't the whole of Christianity. And, lest I offend anyone, I say that as a Christian and clergy person. One more example. American patriotism isn't usually classified as a religion. But religion is a fuzzy term that's really hard to define without either ruling out things that are usually thought of as religions or ruling in things that usually aren't. American patriotism has a bunch of practices (the pledge of allegiance, etc.) and literature (the Declaration of Independence, etc.). It also has stories about its folk heroes (George Washington never told a lie, etc.). And those stories help people interpret what it means to be American. So there are competing stories, for example, about what the American Civil War means: Was it about treason in defense of slavery, or about state's rights? Can someone have pride in being on the Confederate side? Etc. The reason that we treat ancient religions as mythologies is because we usually divorce the stories from their context in the religion. I remember having a bunch of books on Greek and Roman mythology growing up, but none of them addressed temple worship, social structure, or other things that were important to the actual religion. They were just stories... and myth is just the Greek word for story.",
"The Bible, Torah, Talmud, Quran, Gitas, Vedas, Sutras, etc are all mythological holy texts because they are collections of stories about gods and heroes from a various religions. There fact the religions are practiced means nothing. There is no reason to be offended, they are what they are. You can get mad when i point out they are also fictional though. EDIT - people don't like that last sentence, but take the time to ask yourself. If you are a Christian do you believe Muhammad was a prophet who ascended to heaven? Do you believe that Ganesha's father cut off his head and then replaced it with an elephant? Does a Buddhist believe that man is made from dust and a woman was formed from a rib? No. They consider them fictional myths. My statement they are fictional is true, depending where you stand."
],
"score": [
343,
10
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
64s1lr | What counts as being "White" ? | I've always been curios about this. I've never really been sure up to what point is someone considered white; Where is the line drawn and who draws the line? Do Greeks count as white? Do Turqs count as white? Spanish? Lebanese? Kabyle people (Berber people native to Algeria (Africans)? Kazakhstanis? Slavs? Does religion define it? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg4jj3e",
"dg4lzpb"
],
"text": [
"\"Races\" are social constructs. As such anybody is white who is regarded as white by others. The division of humans in different \"races\" is a silly relict from the past, when people thought superficial characteristics like skin color had some deeper significance. Now that we have decoded the human genome, we know that those superficial features do not influence who we are on any \"deeper\" level.",
"'White' typically refers to the caucasoid people of Europe, and their descendants living elsewhere, like in the US, NZ or Australia. Whiteness refers to their ethnicity and not the colour of their skin, 'paleness' is a better word to describe the latter. From your list of examples, the Spanish and Slavs would generally be considered to be white, even if Spaniards are often very tan and sometimes swarthy, while e.g Turks are not white even if they are pale. There are handfuls of blonde, blue-eyed people in Afghanistan and of Berber origin (because they share the same caucasoid roots as white people) but they're typically categorized with Arabs and Turks due to their geographical location."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
64sgcx | Why do people assume everyone wants to/will get married? What's the point? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg4n2ae",
"dg4mx3n",
"dg4pq68",
"dg4vu43"
],
"text": [
"I'm a gay, so I've only been able to get legally married for a bit over 2 years now. The problems we had before we could legally get married were things like being able to be with our partner in the hospital, inheriting possessions if they died, having power of attorney, not being compelled to testify. Imagine if your partner died, and their family hates you, and takes everything in your home (and possibly your home). While all of these could be addressed by other legal means, it's easier to contest that in court, AND why go through all that when you can just get a marriage license. The focus in the gay community was on the civil benefits of marriage, and not so much on the emotional bits.",
"At 19, it's more that a little hubris to claim you understand what you want for the rest of your life. The high-level processing part of your brain is still developing, at least into your late 20s. Marriage is external recognition of your relationship. It has implications to the degree the relevant government, religion, ... is important to you and the rest of your social circle. If you have children, that will bring many more folks into your social circle, and not all of those people will share the same opinions you currently hold.",
"> But if you need some fancy words at a fancy ceremony to be together then how is that considered true love anyway? Social norms underpin a great deal of everything that we do, and they influence people to their very core, including how we subjectively experience emotions like love. Basically, people believe that marriage = true love because they spend their entire lives having that message repeated to them. As for why people bristle when they hear that there are people who aren't interested in following the prescribed \"Marry, house, kids, retire, die\" plan, it's because people are psychologically threatened when they feel that their beliefs about the world are challenged. The reason is that the human brain is lazy. It doesn't like to change its ideas, and will try to resist attempts to change them, even if it is logically unquestionable that those ideas are wrong. One such idea that many people hold is that getting married is the normal thing to do and aspire to. When counterexamples to this idea are shown, the last thing that the brain wants to do is spend time and energy pondering a very difficult question and reevaluating ideas that it's held for most of its existence, so it uses an anger response to shut out those difficult questions. > Shouldn't you be together whether you have some shiny rings on your finger or not? That's a much easier question to answer. You can blame the whole focus on shiny rings on the De Beers cartel: URL_0",
"There are actually some benefits beyond the legal bonding bit of marriage! When you're married to someone, it's like signing a binding contract to that person for life, right? Doesn't sound all that great, but in the long run it can help keep people afloat. Arguments happen, rough patches are part of every relationship, and if you're not married it's really easy to give up when it gets \"too hard\" or \"the feelings aren't there anymore\". So instead of working it out and becoming stronger for it, people would just split and continue having shallow, unfulfilling relationships. Marriage brings a sort of solution for this! Since the legality of marriage makes it *so* hard to just \"split up\", the couple is then forced to work together a little more in sorting out their issues. (This obviously doesn't apply to everyone and some people shouldn't be together in the first place, but I digress) the one-ness of marriage requires the two of you to think as a unit, with real life consequences if you are truly unable to make it work. Divorce is something that only happens if you have exhausted every other option to fix your relationship, which unmarried couples don't necessarily need to do, because they can just break up at the first sign of conflict. Not sure if this was helpful! I'm going to be married within the next couple years so I just thought I'd leave my lil comment"
],
"score": [
9,
5,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5kWu1ifBGU"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
64sjwj | Why do police officers who break the law and abuse their power get "placed on leave" and not fired? when their is clear empirical evidence. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg4njkm"
],
"text": [
"They are effectively suspended while the investigation happens. Would you like to be immediately fired if you did something wrong at your job and have no investigation? They are people too and entitled to the same rights when it comes to them possibly losing their jobs."
],
"score": [
9
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
64u0gg | What does "Form Follows Function and Function Follows Form" actually mean | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg506bb"
],
"text": [
"Not an expert but I have always interpreted it like this: It is a way to say that you can't/shouldn't consider one above the other. A chair should always be useful as a chair, you shouldn't make a chair that doesn't properly work as a chair just to make it more beautiful or whatever your aesthetic purpose was. On the other hand, it can be interpreted that something that serves its purpose very well will probably also have an aesthetic appeal just by the feeling/look of it being very useful."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
64v0kg | Why in Australia is Liberal deemed right-wing, when in America it means the opposite? | It makes watching American politics on youtube that tiny bit harder. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg59vrd",
"dg5eper",
"dg59i9l",
"dg5k0i6",
"dg5u3nm",
"dg5a3v3",
"dg5bnba"
],
"text": [
"To understand this a brief history of liberalism and conservatism is needed. Liberals emerged in opposition to the European monarchies and favored individual liberty. As liberalism evolved, they became divided on how to best pursue liberty. Initially, liberals generally sought freedom from government coercion. Other liberals argued that the least well-off needed to be helped by the state to truly obtain liberty. The division is basically between how much the government should intervene into the economy with classical liberals on the more free market side and social liberals on the more state-welfare side. Due to this history, a lot of European \"liberal\" parties are rather centrist. The US is strange because the libertarians and conservatives (pre-Trump) were actually pretty close to classical liberals. The social liberals are more like the moderate Democrats. Plus, the far left parties in Europe have strong communist and socialist influences that are absent in the US. Also, the conservative parties were the \"Church and State\" people that defended the monarchies. The US also didn't have that same dynamic. And of course, the US always has to be unique so we call anyone on the left \"liberals\" and those on the right are conservative. So the Aussies probably have things labeled correctly and it's the US that's making things difficult. Related - The right and the left is not the same in every country. For instance a labor party might be center-right in country A, but center-left in another country B even if they have the same positions because country A and B are ideologically different as a whole.",
"It is the use of the term \"liberal\" in the sense of \"classical liberal\", which is something closer to \"libertarian\". The US uses the word \"liberal\" in the sense of \"social liberalism\", which basically means \"left-wing\". The other senses of meaning of the word liberal seem to have been lost over there. The modern Australian Liberal Party came about in the mid 1940s after a series of previous different conservative parties had fallen over. It was called 'Liberal' basically for two reasons. Partly it was to sort of honour the former 'Liberal Party' of the 1900s, which was the first major conservative party in independent Australia. And partly it was due to the circumstances of the time: Immediately post-war, the ruling Labor party was trying to use Post-War Reconstruction to pursue a range of Socialist, Big Government policies such as nationalising the banks. The conservatives positioned themselves as \"Liberals\" in the libertarian sense of being opposed to this sort of government interference in private enterprise. Which of course, is a fairly typical conservative position. So while it might look funny to Americans, there is no ideological inconsistency in the use of the word Liberal. As with other countries, the ideology of both major parties has hardened over time, so the Liberal Party is more explicitly \"conservative\" and \"right-wing\" these days. You occasionally see people on both the Right (enthusiastically) and Left (pejoratively) proposing the party be renamed to The Conservative Party as in the UK.",
"Good question. Technically in terms of ideology they SHOULD be the same. If you look in any Poli-Sci text book it'll tell you that the number one plank of liberalism is a belief in the supremacy of the individual, and the freedom of said individual to live their life as they choose, so long as they don't interfere with the freedom of anyone else. You may have heard the expression 'laisez-faire'. That is essentially what that means. But, as you've probably realised the real world rarely sits neatly with what text books say. In Australia at least the Liberal Party, while including people people who identify as liberal in the sense described above, it also contains people who identify as conservative. They tend to drag the party toward the right on the political spectrum. Also, left and right are relative terms. The alternative party in Australia is the Labor Party. The labor party is the political arm of the union movement and is more interested in collective rights over the individual. While there are 'liberals' in the labor party, and in terms of social policy there are similarities with liberals in the US, the labor party also includes people that identify as socialist or even communist. A long winded answer, but I hope that is reasonably clear.",
"Australia. Down under. Imagine turning a bolt with a socket wrench. When you flip it upside down left is right and right is left.",
"Simple, things are backwards when you get to the land down under, the toilets flow the opposite way and so does political terminology, Or it might just be my head full of zombie on this hippie trail.",
"I believe the concept of left and right parties comes from France. Their goverbment literally sat in a semi circle, with the extreme parties on the far left and right sides. I'm spitballing, but Australia probably just seated themselves differently when this sort of thing happened, or when they adopted the terminology or something.",
"It's all about history. You used to have 'Conservatives' and 'Liberals'. Then the communist and labour movements set themselves up to the more liberal side of the existing liberal movement. So those existing 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' movements eventually merged to make the current conservative side - but, in Australia, the retained the 'Liberal' name."
],
"score": [
68,
12,
8,
7,
4,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
64v64q | What on earth are Stellar Mansions? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg5cw58"
],
"text": [
"As the earth rotates around the sun, an observer on the surface of the earth will notice that the constilations appear to rotate (they are actually fixed and we are rotating around the sun). The western zodiac signs are named for the constilation that is blocked by the sun. Rather than being based on the sun the eastern 28 mansions as based on the movement of the moon around the earth (28 day cycle). Each mansion is the position of the moon in that cycle. So there is one mansion for each day in the lunar cycle."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
64wtef | why do some Americans distrust the mass media so much? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg5mibe",
"dg5nyny",
"dg5onyy",
"dg5mlrp",
"dg5o6oq"
],
"text": [
"One of the primary personality types of those that settled the US was that they did not trust government, nor did they trust media. Everyone is always trying to manipulate what you see and think and so everything has to be taken with a grain of salt and tested for its validity.",
"Could it be the long history of the mass media peddling outright lies to serve a political agenda?",
"They have a pattern of pushing stories with false narratives in order to support a political agenda. Both the right and the left are guilty of this. Case in point: CNN hadn't stopped in demonizing Donald Trump ever since he announced his candidacy. Some was valid, some were semantics, some was slander, and some was absolutely false. However, they did not do the same respect against Hillary Clinton, even though this election has revealed much dirt on her. Some of their reporters and contributors who were starting to criticize her, their feed would suddenly have their feed cut. They continually pushed for Donald Trump's tax returns, yet heavily discouraged anyone from looking into the leaked Podesta emails. This led to what is called Fake News, as in a news organization with the purpose of habitually pushing half-truths or non-truths narratives intentionally for the sake of an agenda. The reason we don't trust them? We see it as clear as crystal.",
"Several major publications (namely CNN and the Wall Street Journal as the most recent) have been shown to be editing the news out of context to serve a narrative, and a political agenda, instead of presenting factual information. There's always been some news outlets like this, but these two were considered to be less biased than the others, so them doing this is a huge betrayal of the public trust, and has affected other outlets as a result.",
"news corporations are businesses. they make more money from fearmongering the audiences, and pandering to the political agendas of their investors."
],
"score": [
12,
10,
9,
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
64y4n1 | It's common to have pseudo science and 'Woo' methods of cure on 3rd world countries, where people have little to no access to information, but why such a thing happens on US or other developed countries? | I live in Brazil and it's pretty normal someone to suggest and 'alternative' cure or medicine for a common problem, like diabetes, tummy pains and infections. This is passed from generation to generation and a lot of the people have poor access to public health and medicine. What i don't understand it's why is there such a thing as 'woo', fear of GMOs and pseudo sciences on developed countries. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg5vfoi"
],
"text": [
"People are ignorant and are not skilled at thinking. I know it sounds \"edgy\" to just sum things up with \"People are dumb\" but it is the truth: Most people don't know very much about how the world works and are very poorly equipped to reason concepts out. They are accustomed to not knowing how things actually work internally and treat them like a \"black box\" that mysteriously does things. Look at the questions here: People regularly ask how microwaves work despite having used them for years, so if they don't have a clue about the magic heat box then when someone wants to stick a candle in their ear they aren't equipped to figure out it is nonsense. Medicine can be complex and the mechanisms of drugs and their interaction with healing is not something that can be summed up in a short, easy explanation. The sad fact is that if you can't explain it in two or three simple sentences then most people simply won't ever understand it."
],
"score": [
14
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
64zyrr | Why didn't the Spartans just set up a rear facing line at Thermopylae? | As is pretty well known, the Spartans (and allied Greeks) held the pass at Thermopylae for a few days using the phalanx until Xerxes finally managed to get troops around them and attack from the rear. Given that there were 300 Spartans and 1000 other Greeks in the pass, why couldn't Leonidas simply establish a rearward facing line and hold both fronts simultaneously? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg6cj4j",
"dg6b0p0",
"dg6azq8",
"dg6bgxj"
],
"text": [
"They did. They even posted a guard to the pass that Xerxes used to sneak around them. That guard however saw the Persians coming and instead of defending their small pass they withdrew to the road to their homeland to defend that instead. Once they were being flanked they also fought on both fronts until they were defeated. The purpose of holding the pass once it was determined that they could not defeat the Persians was to give the navy time to fight the Persian navy (which was happening at the same time), and to give enough time for the majority of the army to retreat and regroup with reinforcements. The 1000+ soldiers that stayed in the pass (including the 300 Spartans) stayed as a delaying force.",
"> why couldn't Leonidas simply establish a rearward facing line and hold both fronts simultaneously? They probably could have done that for a bit, but they probably didn't have everything required to live indefinitely within their ranks. Once they are surrounded if they start to need water or somewhere for the wounded to retreat they have no options. It also doubled the length of their fighting line so their forces would need to be split between the two.",
"Leonidas had more more men than 300 soldiers. i think he had like 5000. and he did protect the rear but the persians were just too much.",
"There were 5000 troops in total at the start of the battle, less by the end. Most of the Greeks were not suicidal, being cut off and surrounded only would result in their death if not in combat, by thirst or other lack of supplies. The purpose of holding the pass was to delay the Persians, once another route was available through the pass that was no longer possible, so the principle was to get as many Greeks away to fight a later battle with the united Greek forces than throw away too many lives."
],
"score": [
5,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
64zz7f | why are chemical weapons worse than regular ones? Is gassing a town worse than bombing it, assuming the number of innocent deaths is the same? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg6b4f0",
"dg6c958"
],
"text": [
"Chemical weapons are worse because: 1) They kill slowly. 2) They are not as controllable as they drift in the air and on the water. This means they cause a lot of collateral damage. 3) They often contaminate and kill those attempting to treat the injured, and they often have very few to no actual treatments that work. 4) They contaminate the environment for a long time killing people years after the attack. There are still some battlefields from WWI that are toxic and make people sick or even kill them when they spend time in them.",
"Damn good question. I'm reminded of a line from Full Metal Jacket: \"The dead only know one thing: it is better to be alive.\" Setting aside the high number of very questionable assertions about the incident, two things: first, it wasn't sarin gas. How do we know? Because there were survivors. Second, gas isn't an anti-personnel weapon. It's used to make an army move somewhere they don't want to go. Example: your defensive position is in a valley adjacent to some mountains. An offensive force is moving toward you across level ground, but you don't want to fight them there, for a number of reasons. You want to fight them in the mountains. So you lay down a chemical blanket on the entire valley where your opponent is approaching. Your enemy now has to make a difficult choice: button up and move VERY slowly through gas, diminishing their combat effectiveness by 80-90% - or avoid and approach from another direction, forced to fight you either not at all, or in the mountains, where you prefer to fight anyway. At any rate, it's simply not logical for a military force to use chemical weapons in the way that is being asserted. A LOT of chemical weapons were used in the Iran/Iraq War during the 80's, but even then, they were used in the traditional manner. The question itself has long been asked in regard to the atomic bombing of Japan, the firebombing at Dresden and Tokyo, and many others. Why is it okay to kill 60,000 enemy soldiers in a year, but not in a single night? I think that's one reason (among many) why war is so very self-destructive, even at its most necessary: it forces a society to make ethical judgments that don't make any sense in any context but war. Which is unfortunate."
],
"score": [
12,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
650lnr | How do they decide which song on a new album they should make a music video of? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg6gs5e"
],
"text": [
"That depends entirely on the musical group and studio producing the album. Maybe it is the one the musician likes the most. Maybe it is the one the studio thinks will be the most popular. Maybe it is random."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
651495 | How did sport coats get their name? They are only used for work and work related activities yet we call them sport coats. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg6llpa",
"dg6lewu",
"dg6owr3"
],
"text": [
"That's where you're mistaken: 'sports coats' originally were exactly that: a suit type of jacket worn primarily for hunting, riding, and boating. Then the term was broadened to mean any type of that particular cut of jacket that was purchased without a matching set of trousers and occasionally a vest.",
"Because the world changed around the clothing item much faster than its name could change. When sport coats were named, they were the casual wear of their era (the name comes from them being the casual clothes one would wear to watch a sporting event as opposed to the more [formal suits]( URL_0 ) one wore to more formal events). However, over the following years, trends in means formal wear moved very quickly such that sport coats became a slightly less formal, formal dress, and what would have been scandalously casual wear became appropriate to wear to sporting events.",
"Remember, up until about 100 years ago, most formal wear (i.e. suits) of any type was only worn by the aristocracy. Their formal wear was \"[white tie]( URL_0 ),\" but even dinner each evening was frequently a formal event for the aristocracy (see _Downton Abbey_ for a recent example in media), so these were worn almost daily. Today, you probably only see this level of formality at inauguration balls and the like. For semi-formal wear they had [dinner jackets]( URL_2 ) (what we call tuxedos in the US) and [morning coats]( URL_1 ). Again that was _semi_-formal. By most standards today, those are the common formal dress at weddings, balls, galas, etc. Sport coats were _literally_ worn for sporting -- hunts, horseback riding, racing, etc."
],
"score": [
7,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Beauchamp7.JPG"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_tie",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailcoat#Morning_coat",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuxedo"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
651nze | How did the Wilhelm scream gain popularity? Why is it so common? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg6qi69",
"dg6smbv"
],
"text": [
"> The Wilhelm scream's major breakout in popular culture came from motion picture sound designer Ben Burtt, who discovered the original recording (which he found as a studio reel labeled \"Man being eaten by alligator\") and incorporated it into a scene in Star Wars in which Luke Skywalker shoots a Stormtrooper off of a ledge, with the effect being used as the Stormtrooper is falling. [wikipedia]( URL_0 )",
"As sound departments don't always create new recordings for all the sound effects they need they will often rely on a library of clips, which means the same sound gets used in lots of movies. The Wilhelm Scream is quite distinctive and recognisable in itself (unlike the thousands of other recycled sound clips no one notices) and so using it became a sort of in joke with sound departments - something for other sound people to notice. But as it is so distinctive other people started to recognise it too, so it became an in joke for the real movie buffs, and now pretty much anyone who knows anything about movies will recognise it so it's become more of an overplayed joke."
],
"score": [
13,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_scream"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
651pg7 | Is there a standard for whether tl;dr be included at the beginning or the end of a post? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg6q3zh"
],
"text": [
"No, there is no standard of when to put it in. If you write a big wall of text, you can consider putting it in if you want but there isn't any rules for or against it. Typically they are at the bottom as to not give away the key points of the story for those who read the entire post."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
651zae | In popular culture, why is Latin used to "speak with the dead"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg6yo2o",
"dg72w00"
],
"text": [
"Many of these \"magic\" things are purported to be very old, passed down from generation to generation or originating in some old book. When you want to pick a way to vocalize these \"spells\" or \"rituals\", you would pick something that's old. Most people don't know enough about Latin for it to bother them, either, so it continues to be used. When you hear someone use 2017 English, then you gotta wonder if they are even trying. \"I call thee, Abraham Lincoln, to send me a tweet from your presidential computer.\"",
"Old, sounds spooky. Associated with churches and religion. One of (if not **the**) most prestigious language in history. It confirms a sense of authenticity and secret occult knowledge that has been lost. It's not universal though - for example Evil Dead uses Sumerian, the first language we know of existing in writing. It provides the same sort of secret occult knowledge that has been lost and then rediscovered - leading to evil."
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6547qj | If corporations are legally considered to be people, why is it okay to buy, sell, and own them? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg7bcmf",
"dg7gmnx",
"dg7bfxn"
],
"text": [
"You're taking a idiom for face value. It's not that they're people. They just have rights as an entity. So its not exactly comparable. They don't actually have the rights people have. Some would argue they have more/different/better rights than people, but that's a different question.",
"Because a legal person is not necessarily a human. Being a legal person means being able to own property, owe debts, sign contracts, sue others or be sued, and so on. It also means obligations like paying taxes.",
"The idea of \"corporations as people\" arises from the legal position that corporations are composed of people, and so we can't restrict the rights of corporations if that would violate people's inalienable human rights. This mainly comes up in the context of restricting the free speech of corporations. In the view of US law, we can't restrict the free speech of corporations without restricting the free speech of the people who make up that corporation. So we say \"people have free speech, and corporations are made up of people, so corporations have free speech.\" And some people take that to mean \"corporations are people.\" But that's just kind of a semantics game. If \"corporations weren't people,\" we could make it illegal for corporations to do things like support politicians. Many people are logically concerned about the political influence of corporations, and so this idea keeps coming up. But it is easily misunderstood. Some people may even intentionally want it to be misunderstood. When people say \"corporations are people,\" it would be more accurate for them to say \"people don't stop being people when they are part of a corporation.\""
],
"score": [
7,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
654gi0 | What act/quality changes someone from being funny and crosses the line into obnoxious and annoying behavior? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg7p4k1",
"dg7fvl1"
],
"text": [
"There is no universal thing that applies across all of humanity. It will depend on the people involved. I the actions that I find funny you might find obnoxious. It will vary from person to person.",
"Not sure if there is an actual psychological reason but I'd assume it has to do with attraction. If you're good looking, have a great personality or are a kind person, things you do are seen in a positive light. And, opposite of that, being \"unatttactive\" or a shit person will put things you do in a negative light. (Attraction doesn't just mean outward appearance)"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
654o8a | American education tiers | Hello, I often get confused with information regarding education in America. For example, in my country, we start Primary 1 to 6 at the age of 7, start Secondary 1 to 4 at the age of 13, diploma year 1-3 at the age of 17, and typical university degree year 1-3 at the age of 20. Could someone ELI5 the American timeline equivalent for progressing through education? Like, I get confused when you guys say you go to college for a diploma because I thought high-school was for diplomas and colleges was for degrees. Additional ELI5 is, what are community colleges? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg7e761",
"dg7ere3"
],
"text": [
"This probably varies somewhat depending on where you are, but: American schools usually have students progressing through Grades, one per year. These are divided into Elementary School, Middle School/Junior High, and High School. The first year of Elementary School is Kindergarten, started at age 5-6. Then Grades 1-5, so most children will be 10-11 years old in 5th grade. After that you have Middle School, or Junior High. These are grades 6-8. (Age 11-14) Then High School, grades 9-12, usually ending at age 17-18. You're not wrong, that you get your diploma from High School, then college would give you a degree, but people often use 'diploma' to refer to both, so in colloquial use you might hear \"college diploma.\" There's no set timeline for college, since some people might enter the workforce and go to school part-time, but there's the option of going to a junior, or community college, and earning a 2-year degree, then possibly proceeding to a university for a 4-year degree or more. A community college is just a college offering 2-year degrees; I believe by definition they don't have students living on campus.",
"We have Pre-K, which is glorified day care (ages 2-4) Kindergarten (4-5), then grades 1-5 are elementary, 6,7,8 are middle, then 9 (freshman), 10 (sophomore), 11 (junior), 12 (senior). You graduate from 12 between the ages of 17-19, but typically you are 18. You get a high school diploma. Then you start university, which has many colleges, this is why in America the two words are used interchangeably. For example, I got to Ohio State University, and am in the College of Social Work. When you graduate from here you get a degree. Community college is basically a much cheaper alternative to University where you can get some degrees (like nursing or cosmetology) for like 10% of the price of doing it at a huge University. You also can take your GE's (math, science, etc) for much cheaper, and then transfer to University for the specialized classes."
],
"score": [
9,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
654w4g | Why is the Korean War often overlooked? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg7fon2",
"dg7k87g",
"dg7ori1",
"dg7qcoh",
"dg7fk9d",
"dg7miaz",
"dg7r9j6",
"dg7qdge",
"dg7q96x",
"dg7qdp0",
"dg7qex0",
"dg7r3kl",
"dg7vhft"
],
"text": [
"Fun fact; its also known as \"the forgotten war\". The Korean war is wedged between WW2 and Vietnam, but didn't affect America nearly as much as either. WW2 and Vietnam defined their generations, so it makes sense that they would be remembered. WW2 was on a much grander scale and the whole country was part of the war effort, and it's outcome was highly relevant to most people on earth. The Korean war had an impact mainly on the Korean peninsula. The Korean war didn't drag on like the Vietnam war, and it wasn't nearly as controversial. I wrote that assuming you're American. If you aren't, then the answer is even simpler. It had UN backing, but if you're not American, Korean, or Chinese, then your county probably didn't contribute much to the war effort. A war on foreign land, where the outcome doesn't affect you, and the war effort doesn't involve you, is sure to be forgotten. Basically, it has an extreme version of middle child syndrome.",
"To piggyback on u/shibboreth's comment, *M.A.S.H.*, the T.V. show and the film, are set in the Korean War but were used to satirize the U.S.'s involvement in Vietnam. It's also mentioned in the Clint Eastwood film *Heartbreak Ridge*, as *Heartbreak Ridge* was a battle during the Korean War. There was also the film *Porkchop Hill* about one of the final engagements of the war. It doesn't have a huge place in popular culture even in the years following it. We U.S. only lost about 4,000 less soldiers and marines in Korea than in Vietnam even though the war was only three years long. I think a big part of the war being \"forgotten\" is that it was essentially a loss. After the landings at Inchon, the Marines pushed the North Koreans all the way into China. Then at the Chosin Reservoir the 1st Marine Division was surrounded by the Chinese and butchered, prompting Lt. Gen Chesty Puller to make the famous statement \"They are in front of us, behind us, and we are flanked on both sides by an enemy that outnumbers us 29:1. They can’t get away from us now!” All of the ground gained by U.S. forces was lost quite quickly. South Korea was defended but at a high price. There wasn't really anything to celebrate except the soldiers going home. It was a stalemate, and it was arguably an American strategic defeat. The United States Army has never been defeated, but it's lots plenty of battles and a few wars.",
"The Korean War cannot compare to WWII in scale, impact, etc., and it was not televised like the Vietnam War.",
"It's somewhat ironic that it's forgotten, because it was one of the first major acts of the Cold War. I think the main reasons it is overlooked include: 1 This was the first modern war that the US didn't really win. It ended in a stalemate, which technically still hasn't ended since a peace treaty was never signed. 2 It was one of many \"holding actions\" during the Cold War, which was dramatic but indecisive, and didn't have much impact on people's lives. 3 Korea wasn't really well known by Americans, and wasn't important until decades after the war. 4 Many actors and directors joined the Army for WWII and came back home and told their stories again and again. Not as many went to the Korean War, and their stories were not told nearly as often (though the Manchurian Candidate, for example, featured a Korean War vet). 5 It didn't have the dramatic stories that WWII did. Just like it's hard to dramatize the dirty brutality of trench warfare in WWI (another overlooked war), the stalemate of the Korean War makes it hard to find heroic stories to tell.",
"The Korean War happened between the World War II, the most widely known war in the world, and the Vietnam War, US' longest war to date. The impact on the world is also relatively small in comparison. It is simply overshadowed by its bigger and louder timeline neighbors. Edit: Seems like many people think I am oblivious to the fact that US is still in Afghanistan. I am fully aware that USA leaves military bases in every area they fight a war in. I know USA still has a strong military presence in Middle East and there is still fighting. All I am saying is that, officially, the USA is no longer \"at war\" in Afghanistan since December 31st.",
"Because it was not a resounding win like World War II and it didn't drag on for long as Vietnam.",
"In Canada it isn't really \"forgotten\" at least not by the Military. It is one of our battle honors (Kapyong) in which members of my Regiment (PPCLI) received the Presidential Unit Citation, and formed a brotherhood with 3 Royal Australian Regiment. My Battalion (3 PPCLI) doesn't have the citation and that's fine...who wants to be Mechanized Infantry anyway?! :P",
"1. It's not over yet. 2. It was short, and didn't involve genocide. 3. As awful as it was, WW2 was bigger and worse, and Vietnam was much, much worse. Really, there just isn't anything special about it. We don't talk about the Spanish-American war, the Mexican-American war, the Barbary Coast.",
"On top of some of the reasons here, I think the fact that the war never technically ended plays a part. Nobody won or loss. Just a very long ceasefire, really.",
"Not sure who is overlooking it. The Korean War is the reason the US has so many troops there now. It was showcased in film and TV. Many military folks from Korea ended up serving in Vietnam. Military historians study the Korean War as it was unique in many ways. Most people know little or nothing of history and don't care much so a lack of detailed knowledge in the general population isn't surprising. Ask people about Teapot Dome or the Spanish American War or the War of 1812 or American troops as part of the White Army opposing the Soviet revolution and you'll get just as many blank stares.",
"Also of note, it has never ended. The armistice signed in 1953 was only a cessation of armed hostilities. There has been an ever present mini Cold War waged since. From 1953 to present day the US Military remains present on the peninsula. It has become a part of US military culture and normalcy to a degree. Between other conflicts in the 20th century it was seen as a place to be stationed at to receive the most realistic wartime settings outside of war for certain military professions. It is also interesting to see how it has affected South Korean culture such as the continued separation of families, mandatory conscription for males, daily presence of the threat (urban fortifications, bridges/roadworks built to be easily demolished and sever vital routes, portions of freeway that can be used as active runways), not to mention the many South Korean political regimes that I'm in no way educated to speak on. URL_0",
"History is written by the winners.. In Korea, there was no winner. So, there's less reason to talk about it.",
"Ive always wondered this as well. Thanks for asking this question as ive learned a lot from the comments. We went over every other war endlessly in school but never really went in-depth for the Korean war. My grandfather was a pilot during the Korean war. He went in a foul mothed SW VA badass, co stantly in trouble, and constantly with different women and by the end of the war he decided that he would basically abruptly change his life completely and has been a modest preacher ever since. He refuses to talk about it all, and the few times ive ever tried to bring it up he either walked away and ignored the question or told me there was nothing to talk about. Ive always wanted to know what made him re evaluate his life. Was it the service in general, or something specific ge experienced during wartime."
],
"score": [
399,
348,
76,
24,
22,
9,
9,
8,
5,
4,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
655upw | Please Explain Honorable Sheila Abdus-Salaam's Ruling On Non-Biological Visitation Rights. | Every website I go on to find the answer leaves me more and more confused. If someone could explain it in the form of an example (ie. Mary and John had a baby and then...) I would be super appreciative. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg7n4xr",
"dg7pooe"
],
"text": [
"John and Adam are in a relationship. They decide they want to have a child. John arranges a surrogate mother with Mary and she has the kid. John and Adam raise the kid for 3 years and Mary goes on to live her life normally. John and Adam hit a rough spot and decide to split up. Adam isn't biologically related to the child as his DNA wasn't involved in the childs creation and he never formally adopted the child however he cares very much for the child which he has raised for the last 3 years. Up until the decision was overturned he would have no legal right to visitation and would be treated like a stranger. The ruling overturning that though does grant Adam rights to visit his child.",
"Key point not mentioned: the court does things *for the benefit of the child*. The child looks to the adult as a parent or key caregiver, so it's to the child's benefit the maintain the relationship."
],
"score": [
22,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6565h2 | What is going on with the whole U.S. vs N.K thing and how worried should we be? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg7q27n",
"dg7ronk",
"dg7r937",
"dg7tju7"
],
"text": [
"You should probably not be worried. NK has very little leverage in the international community, since it's essentially a \"buffer zone\" between China and capitalism in SK. As a result, they have gradually become increasingly brazen in their rhetoric. This was no big deal under \"no drama Obama\", because the US mostly ignored them. The current President has a very different personality. The government of NK is in no way interested in war with the US, regardless of what they might say on TV. They might not care about civilian casualties, but in a war with the US there would be leadership casualties. The US isn't interested in NK at all, and the recent actions are emphasizing the \"China's Problem\" approach to NK.",
"Just FYI: many of the recent articles implying preparations for war have been found to be misleading or outright false.",
"Very little, if any, cause for direct concern in the US. NK's nuclear capabilities are *very* primitive and it's not confirmed that they have even developed a nuclear warhead that is small enough to be delivered via missile. To put it in perspective, their nuclear capabilities are about 1/3 the power of the first nuclear weapons used by the US in WWII and more than likely cannot even be delivered via a weapons system. Add to that the fact that the rest of the world has decades of advances in technology to deter attacks and you effectively have a non-threat for someone in the US.",
"Glorious leader will decimate your \"free\" world and dance on your sticky irradiated bones. Do not worry because your destruction is a forlorn conclusion."
],
"score": [
12,
4,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6573hv | I get why cruel punishment is illegal but why is unusual? Why can't punishment be as differentiated as crime is? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg7yp86"
],
"text": [
"\"Unusual\" in this case means \"arbitrary\" and \"irregular\". It's a prohibition on judges turning a process of law-based justice into bizarre personal power trips, and an *attempt* to ensure that people know what to expect from a given verdict. It came as a reaction against the laws of 18th-century and earlier European societies based on medieval custom where noble magistrates had wide latitude to do whatever they wanted to whomever they wanted unless they were of equal or greater rank, and the results were often gruesome and random. So the prohibition on \"cruel\" is self-explanatory, but the prohibition on \"unusual\" is meant to ensure that punishments are actually prescribed in laws and aren't just being made up by judges to entertain themselves or grandstand for mobs."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
657rqn | The possible domino affect of the recent US bombing in Afghanistan | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dg83mdv"
],
"text": [
"There is no domino affect. The US bombed an ISIS target in Afghanistan. They have been doing this for a long time. Nothing new, nothing changed."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.