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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6g7o90 | How do the British political parties relate to American parties when it comes to public policy? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dio6fgc"
],
"text": [
"The two main parties are the Conservatives and Labour, who are traditionally centre-right and centre-left respectively. Labour traditionally raises taxes, spends on public services, education, the NHS etc, has significant union backing and supports workers rights. Conservatives typically cut taxes, try to keep a smaller role for the state and oppose government intervention in markets. It's worth noting that although these leanings make comparisons like Labour-Democrat and Conservative-Republican easy, the UK is generally more left wing than the US, so it might be easier to see a left-right spectrum as Labour - Conservative - Democrat - Republican. There are several smaller parties that play a larger role in UK politics than in the US. The Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) primarily campaigns on a platform of wanting more autonomy and/or independence for Scotland. Their policy positions are generally left-wing. Plaid Cymru is a nationalist party in Wales that has similar priorities. Northern Ireland is complicated - divisions there are traditionally down lines drawn up between Unionist parties (who want to be part of the UK) and Republicans who want an independent Ireland. Northern Ireland politics are often ignored by the rest of the UK and this parliament will be interesting as the Conservatives are going to rely heavily on support from the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) to support their government. The Liberal Democrats are traditionally the third party, they believe in low intervention in markets but are quite socially liberal and oppose things like increased surveillance and disproportionate anti-terror measures. They had a lot of support in 2010, formed a coalition with the Conservatives which was not liked by their supporters and lost a lot of their vote in 2015. It seems they haven't really picked up much in 2017. Policy highlights include voting reform. The Green Party is slowly transforming from a single-issue party on the environment to a very left-wing party. They only have 1 MP but she is very vocal and generally well respected, at least in the Reddit bubble. The UK Independence Party (UKIP) is perceived as a single issue party opposing the EU. They've only ever briefly held 1-2 seats, and currently hold none, but huge support in 2015 taking voters from the Conservative base caused the whole Brexit situation."
],
"score": [
13
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6g8cvf | Please explain what occured yesterday with the British elections to an American who is confused, and what does it mean that the PM asked the Queen to make a new government? Sounds daunting. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dio8prf",
"dio9em7",
"dio8oez",
"dio9vxp"
],
"text": [
"We have what's known as a hung parliament. This means that no one party has enough seats in Parliament to form a government. One party needs 326 of their MP's to have the majority and form the government. When no one party has enough MP's to form a government in their own right they can team up with other parties to get the majority. All Governments in the UK serve under the monarch, in this case the Queen. So when the leader of the party that won (or who has formed an agreement with other parties / joined a more formal coalition) wants to claim victory they go to the Queen and ask permission to form a government. The Queens role is ceremonial however she is still required to sign bills to pass them into law. This is known as Royal assent. She wouldn't ever use her veto.",
"The lower house of Parliament, which is what had elections yesterday, has 650 seats, all of which were up for election. This means a party needs half-plus-one (326) seats to have a majority. Prime Minister Theresa May called for earlier elections because she believed her Conservative Party, which already had the majority of seats, would win more, giving them more power to negotiate brexit, but they ended up losing 12 seats, and thus their majority, while the other major party, Labour, picked up 31. Unlike in the US, however, there are more than 2 parties. In the US, One party will always have a majority because there are only 2 that ever get elected. In the UK, Aside from the Conservative and Labour Parties, there are 6 other parties that collectively hold 69 seats. This means that neither of the 2 largest parties has the 326 seats needed to form a majority, although the Conservatives still have the most seats. The closest analogy to the US would be if a bunch if independents got elected, and neither the Democrats or the Republicans had the 218 seats in the House required for a majority. That means the largest party would have to rely on these independents to vote with them any time they want to pass a bill. The same situation is now set to happen in the UK. The conservatives are still the largest party, but without a majority, they'll need at least some of these other parties to vote with them to pass any laws, which means they'll have to make concessions to give these parties things they want. As for the ramifications, as I already mentioned above, the Conservatives will have to work with other parties to pass laws, greatly weakening their position just as they're about to try to negotiate brexit, and probably causing a lot of gridlock. Also, the Prime Minister has been greatly embarrassed and could face a leadership challenge, as it was entirely her fault that her party is now in a worse position than before. As for asking the Queen to form a government, that's just a ceremony where the elected head of the largest party goes to the queen and official becomes Prime Minister. The reason she has to ask is because the government is in the Queen's name, but it's just a ceremonial thing.",
"I am glad someone else is confused. She calls for an election, no party gets majority, she talks to the Queen, and still forming a government. What?",
"Here's the breakdown: Theresa May is the leader of the Conservative party and was the Prime Minister who called an election. She called it when the party has a lead in the polls to try and gain a larger majority to create a \"strong and stable\" party to lead the EU negotiations. Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of the Labour party who are the main opposition. Corbyn was demonised by the press for his \"socialist policies\" that involved nationalising most of the UK's services, free tuition fees and large increases in spending. The UK election works on a first past the post system. This means that the UK is divided up into constituencies in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. People vote in these constituencies for the candidate they want to represent them, the candidate with the most votes in that region wins and gets a seat in parliament. To get a majority government, a party needs to win 326 seats. This year no party achieved this meaning the parliament is \"hung.\" Conservatives won 319 seats, with Labour winning 261 seats. The Prime Minister must now to meet the Queen to say she will try and form a government. It seems likely that she will ally her party with the Democratic Union Party of Northern Ireland, who won 10 votes, giving them a coaliation os 329 votes which is above the 326 majority. The election has been a little bit surprising due to Labours gain despite Corbyn being demonised by the media and ridiculed by his own party members prior to the election being called. The large gain in Labour support has been credited to a big youth turnout, particularly in student towns like Sheffield and Canterbury. The other factor has been the collapse of the UKIP party whose main policy was Brexit. Support for UKIP was predicted to turn into Conservative votes due to UKIPS right-wing alignment, however Labour have received an equal proportion of this vote in regions that voted leave during the EU referendum. Theresa May has now declared her intention to form a government. It's widely speculated that this will be a minority government with some leaning on the DUP. This is different to the last coalition government in 2010 between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats which was a formal coalition government. Hopefully this adequately and neutrally explains the situation here. I'm going to try not to devolve into discussing policies, personalities and opinions beyond the surface reports. If anyone has further questions please reply and I'll endeavour to try and fairly respond."
],
"score": [
26,
20,
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6g92nx | Why are all politicians have a clean shaven face? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dioexmu",
"diomxva",
"diof0yg",
"dip0j3t"
],
"text": [
"The general reason you're more likely to be clean shaven is because it's easier to look presentable with a clean shaven face than with a beard. In general though, there is not a rule against beards and people don't purposely vote against people with facial hair. Take for example Jeremy Corbyn in the UK news recently. Great guy with a beard who is a politician.",
"They aren't...but it's rare in US politics \"In January 2015, Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin sported a new beard as he announced he would not seek the GOP presidential nomination for 2016\" URL_0 Here in Alaska we have a guy that keeps running for Senate who has the unshaven look down URL_1",
"Those with clean shaven faces are perceived as smarter, more trustworthy, and are more like able in general.",
"I seem to recall reading somewhere that people unconsciously see clean-shaven people as more trustworthy, because beards suggest that a person is hiding something."
],
"score": [
15,
7,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://www.politico.com/magazine/gallery/2015/12/politicians-with-beards-000559?slide=0",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Miller_(Alaska_politician)"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6g93k6 | The USA military ranking system. | I just finished watching band of brothers and I'm curious what ranks there are and how long it would take to reach them. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diomvnx",
"dioge94",
"diofix3",
"diolluq",
"diof8vc"
],
"text": [
"So Band of Brothers was set in WW2, where the ranks for the military were a bit different than today (where they have been standardized). Promotions back then, due to the massive expansion of the military, happened a lot quicker: it was possible for people to reach Colonel (O-6) in their late 20's, simply because there was space in front of them/they needed one/the guy in front of him got killed. An example in Band of Brothers is Major Winters: he went from 2nd Lieutenant in 1942 after commissioning from OCS, was a 1st Lieutenant on D-Day, got promoted to Captain on July 1st, 1944, then was a Major. In today's military, you have two years as a 2nd Lieutenant, followed by 2 years as a 1st Lieutenant, followed by 4-6 years as a Captain. Those ranks are mostly automatic - starting with Major, however, you face a promotion board, and if you are passed over for promotion twice from here on out, you essentially are out (you can't be promoted essentially - if you make O-4 though, you are eligible for retirement and can stay in to hit 20 years). As far as the ranks go: **Enlisted** Pay Grade | Army | Marine Corps | Air Force | Navy/Coast Guard -- | -- | -- | -- | -- E-1 | Private | Private | Recruit | Seaman Recruit E-2 | Private | Private First Class | Airman | Seaman Apprentice E-3 | Private First Class | Lance Corporal | Airman First Class | Seaman E-4 | Corporal/Specialist | Corporal | Senior Airman | Petty Officer, 3rd Class E-5 | Sergeant | Sergeant | Staff Sergeant | Petty Officer, 2nd Class E-6| Staff Sergeant | Staff Sergeant | Technical Sergeant | Petty Officer, 1st Class E-7 | Sergeant First Class | Gunnery Sergeant | Master Sergeant | Chief Petty Officer E-8 | First Sergeant / Master Sergeant | First Sergeant / Master Sergeant | Senior Master Sergeant | Senior Chief Petty Officer E-9 | Sergeant Major | Sergeant Major / Master Gunnery Sergeant | Chief Master Sergeant | Master Chief Petty Officer As you can see, the Navy/Coast Guard are identical, the Army/Marines are pretty similar, and the Air Force... who knows why the Air Force feels the need to be different but you do you I guess **Warrant Officers** Pay Grade | Rank -- | -- W-1 | Warrant Officer (Army/Marines only) W-2 | Chief Warrant Officer 2 W-3 | Chief Warrant Officer 3 W-4 | Chief Warrant Officer 4 W-5 | Chief Warrant Officer 5 Note that the Air Force has NO warrant officers, while the Navy/Coast Guard do not have a W-1 rank. **Officers** Officers are easy: Pay Grade | Army/Marines/Air Force | Navy/Coast Guard -- | -- | -- O-1 | Second Lieutenant | Ensign O-2 | First Lieutenant | Lieutenant Junior Grade O-3 | Captain | Lieutenant O-4 | Major | Lieutenant Commander O-5 | Lieutenant Colonel | Commander O-6 | Colonel | Captain O-7 | Brigadier General | Rear Admiral (Lower Half) O-8 | Major General | Rear Admiral (Upper Half) O-9 | Lieutenant General | Vice Admiral O-10 | General | Admiral There is an O-11 rank (5-star), for General of the Army or General of the Air Force or Fleet Admiral, but those have only ever been issued for wartime commanders during WW2, and are not in use at this time edit: fixed formatting",
"It's important to start out with the point that there are 3 separate categories of military rank: Enlisted (E1 thru E9) Warrant (CWO1 thru CWO5) Commissioned (O1 thru O10) Enlisted is the \"grunt\" category of the people sent to directly do things. Enlisted can be broken into 9 pay grades. These pay grades categorized into into 3 sub-Categories. Simple seamen, soldiers, and marines are pay grades E1 thru E3. Starting at E4, the ranks become Non-commisioned officers (with some oddness with the army making some E4s \"specialists\", which get the pay w/o the non-com status). These are Corporals and Sergents in the Army/Marines, and Petty Officers in the Navy. These ranks are given limited authority over a few soliders/marines/sailors in order to assist and organize them in carrying out their orders. In the context of Band of Brothers, these ranks would be in charge of leading a fireteam (3-4 soldiers) or squad (two fireteams). Starting at E7, these ranks are considered \"Senior Non-commisioned Officers\". They are going to be incharge of coordinating and training the non-coms under their authority and advising the officers. These are Sergents First Class, First/Master Sergents, and Sergent Majors in the army, and Chief Petty Officers (including Senior Chief and Master Cheif) in the Navy. I'm going to skip CWOs because i really never had much exposure to them, and they are a special case that doesn't usually fit into the typical command structure. Commissioned officers are a bit complicated because there are to types that are independent of rank: Line and Staff. Line officers are the command officers, so i'll focus on them. Commisioned officers are the administrative and tactical leaders of their units, and junior officers (ensigns [navy only] and leutenants) generally have authority over a Platoon (2 or more squads), along with a senior NCO as an advisor. Higher ranking Officers typically have authority over larger units. The ranking nomenclature between the services is pottentially confusing at this point (Army Captain = O3, Navy Captian = ~~O5~~ O6 **OR** commanding officer of a ship), so I suggest simply looking up the officer's pay-grades for that. Edit: Also, an additional, important point is the distinction between Rank and Authority. Authority trumps Rank, which means a junior enlisted that is given authority to control access to a location can safely block an O10 that is not authorized to access that location, with force if necessary.",
"There is a huge difference between rank progression in wartime, vs promotions in peacetime. For instance, a \"bird colonel\" in the Army during peacetime, might have 25 to 30 years service and probably be in his 50's. During WW2 there were \"bird colonels\" who were in their late 20's and had less than 6-8 years of service. The war caused a tremendous expansion in the military, in 1939 the army had 139k soldiers, in 1945, 8.2 million. That's 43 times larger in war than in peace. So there was no way to really let officers advance through normal channels, you really had to just promote and hope for the best. Enlisted ranks were similar.",
"for the enlisted ranks part of your question was how long does it take to advance in rank. E1-e3 = right out of boot camp a guy will usually be e1or e2 They advance 1 pay grade usually every 9-12 month until e3. After e3 - for each subsequent advancement they compete with their peers.....through a combination of a board or a written test and review of the points achieved from awards and periodic evaluations. E4 = 2-4 years in military E5 = 3-9 years in the military E6 = 7-16 years in the military E7 = 8-19 years in the military E8 = 15-23 years in the military E9 = 18-25 years in the military These are all rough estimates because it really depends on the persons performance and how their peer group is manned. So for example if the guy comes in as a medic and we have lots of medics - it may take him a while to get advanced because he is competing with alot of guys for the same spots. On the other hand if he comes in and goes to nuclear power school - he is highly likely to get advanced first or second time he is eligible for every advancement because nuclear techs are in high demand and the military rewards them with quick advancement to try to keep them in the military instead of taking those skills to the civilian world where they can make more money. For officers its much harder to describe a time period....but they get near automatic advancement from O1 to O2 and then to O3.....and after that they compete with their peers for advancement each year. They must be selected for advancement within a certain time period or they will be released and not allowed to stay in the military anymore.",
"in the US (i'm in Canada) it's pretty much a linear curve, but I think this article does a much better job ELI5 than I could URL_0"
],
"score": [
42,
10,
5,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.thebalance.com/enlisted-promotions-made-simple-3331909"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6g9ih4 | Why is the term "Latino" now preferable to "Hispanic" when it seems to technically be a less accurate term? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dioiiqm"
],
"text": [
"Latino means \"from latin america,\" so Spaniards aren't Latino. Hispanic means you come from a country that primarily speaks Spanish. So if you're a Brazilian, you are Latino (because you're in Latin America), but you're not Hispanic (because you speak Portuguese, not Spanish). If you're from Spain, you are Hispanic, but you aren't Latino. If you're from Mexico, you are both."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6g9oat | how do DUP beliefs/ideas/policies actually differ from Tory beliefs/ideas/policies? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diokksh"
],
"text": [
"The Democratic Unionist Party would, at best, be on the far right of the Conservative Party. For example they support policies such as anti-gay-rights and anti-abortion which the majority of Tory Party members have long since moved past. But most importantly, as a Northern Irish unionist party the DUP has close links with outlawed loyalist terrorist groups. The links are never close enough that any action can be taken against DUP MPs or MLAs, but in the unionist and loyalist communities the links are well-known and obvious. Finally, there was a huge corruption scandal in Northern Ireland in the last year which caused the Northern Irish government to collapse; the main summary of that corruption is that the DUP more-or-less stole £400 million from the people of Northern Ireland."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6garzv | Why is it more acceptable to smoke a cigar to celebrate, but not cigarettes? | I often see athletes celebrate victories with a cigars or talk about smoking a nice cigar, but never cigarettes? Aren't cigars just as bad, if not worse? Won't they get addicted? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diotosv"
],
"text": [
"A cigar is (relatively) expensive and uncommon, which makes it special, whereas a cigarette is cheap and ordinary. As far as being a tobacco product, you don't inhale cigars. Cigar smoke is far more acidic than cigarette smoke, meaning the nicotine is readily absorbed through the mouth. Cigarette smoke needs to be inhaled. The rate of nicotine uptake into the brain is faster through inhalation than absorption, even though a cigar will deliver substantially more nicotine (approximately an entire pack of cigarettes worth) than a cigarette. The ability of any drug to bring on addiction appears to be related to the speed with which its messages are delivered to the brain. The more quickly the brain feels the effects of what the body takes in, the more easily it is able to connect/associate this action with the reaction of pleasure. Therefore, cigar smokers are far less likely to develop dependence. > Wald, N. J., and Watt, H. C. (1997). Prospective study of effect of switching from cigarettes to pipes or cigars on mortality from three smoking related diseases. BMJ 1997; 314:1860 (28 June). All other health risks are still there, namely cancer. But cancer risk is cumulative, so the more you smoke, the more likely you'll develop cancer. If you only smoke the occasional cigar, you're statistically safer than a regular smoker. A cigar a week vs a pack a week is about equivalent, for perspective, so imagine smoking a cigar maybe once every couple months vs a pack a day smoker."
],
"score": [
14
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6gckvl | Where did some of the more common anime tropes, such as naming attacks or having blood shoot out of a person's nose to show arousal, originate and how did they develop over time? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diphfwl",
"dipd0mg",
"dipeaoj",
"dipc1oc",
"diq1vti",
"dippgs9",
"dipgftu",
"diphyc5",
"dipht2f",
"dipktb5",
"dipc31a",
"diptapu",
"dipjapb",
"dipg01t",
"dipispf",
"dipfizm",
"dipidvy",
"dipkdub",
"diplzeu",
"dipe67f",
"dipfdkp",
"dipkug1",
"dipcgmb",
"dipl5c4",
"dipkevf",
"dipgts4",
"dipjxqi",
"dipkhpy",
"diprsi9",
"dippy9s",
"dipnpqw",
"dipjsfv",
"dipw55j",
"dipm139",
"dipt4xp",
"dipn5n7",
"dipo5yw",
"diprbph",
"diq1tgu"
],
"text": [
"Come to TV Tropes. Never get out. URL_3 \"The origins of this phenomenon are at least Older Than Print, and probably much older. The idea that words can grant power is a cross cultural phenomenon that shows up frequently in the earliest tales of swords and sorcery. Members of the Sinitic ethnolinguistic family in particular tend to ascribe special importance to the power of written characters, and the belief that special words can invoke control over supernatural power permeates their folklore (just ask your local Shinto, Buddhist, or Taoist practitioner if they've donated to a shrine or temple to have a talisman written lately). The magic power of spoken and written words was also a key concept in Ancient Egyptian religion and Ritual Magic. In terms of realism, this has some ground as traditional and even some current practitioners of martial arts hold the belief that accompanying statements and/or vocal noises alongside execution build up their chi, thereby increasing the power and efficacy of their moves and techniques. Put less spiritually, saying a phrase at the right time during an attack ensures proper breathing. A call used for this reason is known as a kiai. The naming of attacks also served a more practical purpose as many martial arts schools, Chinese ones in particular, used to be secret societies. The passing down of techniques was done orally and giving them esoteric names often facilitated this transmission. In addition, kiai has the potential to startle the opponent and give you an opening.\" URL_4 \"In Japanese media, healthy young men who have no other sexual outlet will often suffer nosebleeds upon seeing the naked female body, or even just a pair of well-filled panties. [...] The nosebleed is a visual shorthand/euphemism for sexual arousal. It is commonly interpreted that way for males and females, with little trickles of blood indicating mild arousal, and gushing fountains of blood indicating erection/extreme arousal in both sexes. It can also be interpreted as shorthand strictly for erections in males. In that case, when blood shoots from the nose explosively, and in ridiculous quantity, the implication would be an ejaculation.\" Edit: u/makinait said in comments: \"Re: nosebleeds, they haven't mentioned that visually it we as invented + popularised in the 70's by comedic pioneer Yasuji Tanioka. [source] ( URL_0 )\" Here's a short note about [Yasuji Tanioka] ( URL_2 ) in English. [This article] ( URL_2 ) claims the nosebleed was first used in his 1970s manga Yasuji no Mettameta Gaki Dou Kouza. Other artists started using this idea because in some genres it's preferable to being explicit. Edit II: And /u/zeropointcorp tagged a [panel] ( URL_1 :) from that manga.",
"Naming attacks is a tradition dating back to giant robot shows in the 1970s, to encourage young children to shout the names of giant robot Mazinger Z's attacks as he performed them. Focus testing showed that this made the show more engaging, and other children's anime adopted this strategy. (There aren't many credible English-language sources for this, but whether or not it's the originator, Mazinger Z was definitely the show that introduced \"called attacks\" to the mainstream.) Nosebleeds as a sign of arousal comes from the belief that people get nosebleeds when excited in general. I've also heard some Japanese people claim that there's an old wives' tale that nosebleeds are specifically a symptom of arousal or sexual attraction, but I haven't seen definite evidence that this predates the existence of the animated trope. Whatever the origin, it was popularized by the anime Urusei Yatsura in the 1980s and became widespread among romantic comedy anime in the 1990s.",
"As far as I know, most of them come from superstition or folklore. My knowledge is limited on the topic, but there is one trope I can speak to. Sometimes in an anime, you might notice that when a character is being spoken about by other characters, they will do a jump cut to that character sneezing. Or they'll have a conversation play out about a character who's in the next scene, and that scene will start with the sneeze. This trope is because of a Japanese superstition that when you sneeze, it means somebody's talking about you behind your back.",
"Just for the nosebleed thing, I looked this up recently and it's like an old wives tale that if you have impure thoughts your nose bleeds. Cheers",
"Thank you guys for taking such an interest in this topic! I wasn't sure I'd get any answers but I have to say I definitely feel like I've learned a lot about the culture of our world.",
"[There's a popular Japanese variety show]( URL_0 ) that did some real life experiments à la Mythbusters to see if any of those famous manga tropes can happen in real life. They had a virgin guy suddenly be confronted with a topless girl to see if a nosebleed happens. Interesting watch. Edit: subtitles start at 1:49",
"won't these have origins in manga? a character would definitely need to \"shout\" (in text) the special attack to give it impact; since having the character in a pose with just a subtext showing the name of the attack wouldn't have the same impact blood shooting out of the nose, eyes bulging out, mouths opened wider than their faces, etc helps the reader connect better, as there is no motion and auditory cues",
"I have one - that weird gasp that they do in like every anime, whenever someone is surprised. What the hell is that and why is it such a distinct vocal sound that so much anime uses it, but not really any western media?",
"I would like to tack on to the original post and ask about the origin of the typical anime duo with one (usually younger) sibling who is gigantic, mentally slow, and strong, and another one (usually older) who's small in stature, hyper intelligent, and crazy as hell. They show up in a ton of anime in the same make up but different characters. Just a few shows with characters like this would be One Punch Man, Trigun, and Ruruoni Kenshin.",
"Not necessarily a trope but something I was wondering- why do so many anime girls have ridiculously long hair? There's always at least one girl with knee length or longer hair in any given show. You never see anything like that in western animation. What's the reason behind Rapunzelesque locks?",
"Well I know in Asian fantasy novels they use skills and name it after what they're doing, which is kinda from martial arts I believe. Also I've known people who when they are excited (aroused) they sometimes bleed from nose because blood rushes to head and their nose blood vessel is too weak.. Usually happen when they're young. Source: am Asian lived there for half ma life",
"I'm gonna piggy back on this and ask a few: The trope that individuals gives solemn or dramatic lines while having their back back face their audience. In western culture we face our audience and look them in the eyes when talking to them. In anime, a character (usually a badass, a villain, or a father-figure) says a plot reveal while their back is facing the hero or cast, followed by usually disappearing or walking away once the punchline is delivered). The trope that androgenous males with thin and waifish builds are extremely powerful and only need to use the slightest, most effortless motions to employ extremely destructive or precise and deadly attacks (Kurama, Griffith, etc). As opposed to the trope in western culture of big brawny muscular guys being strong and powerful and waifish men being weak and poor fighters. *Does this have any basis in Japanese culture of Samurai not being muscular and brawny but being highly technical and precise in their swordsmanship, also perhaps roots in Zen Buddhism to go with the flow//Water Scroll from Musashi? Perhaps a notion in Japanese culture that raw strength is barbaric/gortesque, and elegant and refined technique and aesthetics are better marks of a finer warrior?*",
"Tangentially related, I often wondered where the trope of the wash basin falling on a character's head which you sometimes see in anime came from. From what I have read, it is basically the equivalent of an anvil falling in someone's head in western cartoons.",
"Nosebleeds have to do with blood pressure, as in erections. In reality your blood pressure drops when you pop a stiffy but the logic isn't totally out there. Naming attacks is also possibly related to martial arts and all of the forms and moves being named.",
"A lot of the original tropes people find in Mecha anime nowadays can be traced back to a few shows, but I'll argue that the original Mobile Suit Gundam was one of the most inspirational and influential to the genre as a whole. You've got evil empires fighting outgunned, outmanned good guys, teenagers stealing experimental giant robots, little kid characters running around in the background, and masked antagonists. Hell, decades later modern anime are still copying these tropes. In Code Geass, the protagonist subverts the masked villain trope by being the villain, and in Eureka Seven the main character hops into a dual-piloted mecha that's basically powered by love. Anime's wild, man.",
"Hey, I took a Japanese pop culture class in college. Things that are considered very 'anime-y' are actually recognized by cultural scholars. They are called moē elements. If you'd like to know more, you should start by looking at that",
"Can someone explain the snot bubble when they show people sleeping?",
"Not sure if true or not but I had a theory about nosebleeds. When you're embarrassed/aroused you blush- blood rushes to your face. Anime characters unfortunately blush too hard and the blood flow needs an escape, hence the nosebleeds.",
"Can someone else explain why there are a lot of \"geniuses\" that are clearly written by people who aren't geniuses?",
"Blood from someone's nose is a specifically Japanese trope. Many high school dramas involving romance show young males getting nosebleeds before they consciously realize they have the hots for a girl.",
"I always thought they got a nose bleed because the blood is rushing to their \"head\" But I guess that doesn't make sense if the Japanese don't also refer to their penis as their head Still a funny coincidence",
"Can someone explain the trope of ice shifting in a glass during tense moments? I can't seem to find anything about it.",
"just a theory but i think a lot of it has to do with adapting it from the manga, where information can just be written out on the page",
"I believe naming attacks came from asian countries where attacks were, well, named. Like \"monkey plucks peaches\" is a drunken kung fu ability where the person plucks his opponents... Peaches... If you get the drift.",
"If I too may piggyback, what is with the need to freeze time and analyze little details so often? It's a problem these days where I really can't enjoy the genre anymore. Every little thing a main character notices is an existential crisis. As an amateur writer, it strikes me as violating \"show, don't tell.\"",
"There are also a lot of talk about urinating in anime too, anyone have an answer for this?",
"One artist in the 70's did it, people followed. URL_0",
"Random rankings for opponents or monsters that they never explain and are super convoluted.",
"Another common anime theme is the Technicolor hair in extreme styles, which started as a means of highlighting protagonists and important cast members so they stand out from the background often unnamed characters. Hair has since become closely tied with character. To the point that most otaku will be stereotype hairstyles to personality traits.",
"A lot of the tropes are just euphemisms exaggerated to a cartoony level. The bloody nose trope, for example, is making fun of the way blood rushes to your genitals when you're aroused. From an animators point of view without drawing something explicit, it's hard to draw arousal. So instead they show the act of blood rushing and in this case, it's from the nose. The same reasoning can be used to explain a lot of them.",
"Or when someone says something outrageous and everyone falls over head first. I love that one.",
"Fist of the north star had to be one of the fist martial arts type animes to have absurd sounding names for every punch they throw. it influenced DBZ and similar things pretty heavily.",
"Well, this is only tangentially related, but I've been wondering what's with the rise of Dullahan's in manga and anime? Durara, Monster Musume, Interviews with Monster Girls, etc. How does a lesser known mythological creature from Irish folklore start becoming ubiquitous in Japanese pop culture?",
"I don't know about naming attacks but i do know the reason behind having blood shoot out of their nose, the generally accepted explanation is that when they see something arousing they have increased blood pressure to the head and they start pumping the blood so hard it shoots out of their nose, this actually means that they are very healthy because they have a lot of blood as opposed to what most people think (that it is equal to heavy blood loss)",
"Supplemental explanation to the good ones already here: nosebleed emphasizes/telegraphs a rise in blood pressure, which again looks back to arousal or erections. Many animes are based on manga, where you often need the shouting to indicate that the attack happened in that panel, and for some artists, nobody would be able to tell the attacks apart if they didn't have different names. It's a cheap way for the character to do the same thing, but \"even harder\". (True of anime as well)",
"... blood shooting out of a nose for arousal?",
"To add to what others said about nosebleeds, similar to how redheads are more resistant to anesthesia, Asian people generally have higher blood pressure.",
"Does anyone more knowledgeable on japanese culture understand the juxtaposition between anime's obsession with sex and fan service shots and Japan's lack of drive to have sex/kids IRL, censored porn, etc? Perhaps there's zero correlation but after watching my sixth harem idol anime I was curious what's driving the phenomenon lol. I just hate finding a really good anime and it inevitably having that one weird rape-y 13 year old scene or awkward beach episode or flashing middle schoolers panties -_-. You simply dont see that kind of stuff in western media",
"I watched the anime The Boy and the Beast recently (good movie) and the boy character had a little white mouse-like creature sitting on his head or his shoulder the entire movie. I have noticed in some animes these little creatures or mascots that main characters have that are just kind of there without any real plot reason. What do these mascots represent? In The Boy and the Beast it seemed like the mascot represented the Boy's innocence and hope even as he grew up to be a man? Do these mascots have a larger meaning in anime?"
],
"score": [
4029,
2439,
330,
269,
162,
85,
78,
72,
54,
45,
34,
30,
25,
23,
22,
21,
20,
15,
11,
11,
10,
9,
9,
9,
9,
8,
7,
7,
7,
6,
5,
4,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%B0%B7%E5%B2%A1%E3%83%A4%E3%82%B9%E3%82%B8",
"https://www.google.pl/search?q=%E9%BC%BB%E8%A1%80%E3%83%96%E3%83%BC&prmd=ivmn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2v7OUo7PUAhWLErwKHeowAr8Q_AUICSgB&biw=375&bih=559&gws_rd=cr&ei=dDA8WcDHDeOogAaU1obgBw#tbm=isch&q=%E9%BC%BB%E8%A1%80%E3%83%96%E3%83%BC+%E3%83%A4%E3%82%B9%E3%82%B8&imgrc=pBQIpWJ-pCVr6M",
"http://users.skynet.be/mangaguide/au1907.html",
"http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CallingYourAttacks",
"http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Nosebleed"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://vid.me/Cork"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://comicbook.com/anime/2017/06/06/anime-nosebleeds-reasoning/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6gcmla | Why does a spanish language conversation sometimes have random English words thrown into the mix | A couple was speaking spanish at a glasses place yesterday, and part of their conversation had some English words in there at seemingly mid or end sentence. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dip8r8i",
"dip89we",
"dip8wpo",
"dip9uou",
"dip86az",
"dip9l2y",
"dipgxn3",
"dipc1mw"
],
"text": [
"Probably for the same reason English conversations have random Spanish words in them, *compadre*. I'm an *aficionado* of language so I tend to pay attention to language even if I know *nada* about Spanish (that's not actually true, I took Spanish in high school...a decade ago...so I know *very slightly* more than nada). Maybe they're just using random English because it sounds *suave* or *macho*. Did you see them later in the *cafeteria*? Anyway, there are some English loanwords that have made it into the colloquial Spanish in America, even if English is way better at stealing words from other languages. All that said, it's likely they were *code-switching*. Language isn't just rote memorization and rote recall of words that you know. There's an entire section of the brain dedicated to language. When you know multiple languages you're storing different symbols for the same concepts and sometimes as you speak in one language your brain reaches for one language's word and recalls the other. Often it's because the word in one language is used more or, for you, more closely associated with the concept so when you speak it's more natural and easier to grab that word first, so you do. This can even be true culturally, so that many people in the same area use the same word even though it's foreign - sometimes even the people who *aren't multilingual*, which is how loanwords get introduced into a language. The multilingual people use it so often around the people who only know the one language that it replaces the native word. When people make those switches, it's called code-switching. The vast majority of the time it's subconscious and they probably won't even notice unless you point it out to them.",
"This if very common for bilingual speakers. Some words or phrases are easier to say in English than your native language. Or the English word is more precise. For example, in Russian, there is no word for \"cute\". There are words similar to it but it's just easier to say \"cute\". Other times you blank out on the word to use for whatever reason but the English word is right there. Source: bilingual speaker though not Spanish.",
"To be fair, English speakers drop Spanish words into their conversations as well, whether it's a Spanish word we've adopted into English (quesadilla, mosquito, fiesta) or phrases that are common enough to be well known (\"Hasta la vista, baby!\", \"No mas!\"). That's going to be even more common when the language you're borrowing from is the predominant language of the place you're in, which means you're exposed to it all the time.",
"Sometimes even if you're speaking one language, a word or phrase from another one has a sort of *je ne sais quois* that makes it a better fit for your sentence.",
"My best guess is that, over the course of either learning Spanish or English, they discovered that some terms get the point across more 'efficiently' than trying to describe it in the 'other' language. So lets say the equivalent for \"lamp\" doesn't exist in the Spanish Language [theoretically]: Would you explain it as \"the thing that sits on table and emits light\" or would you just throw the English word in there for simplicity's sake? Might not have been what you were going for, but that's all I could come up with seeing as I don't speak Spanish, only Eng+Fr.",
"Spanish speaker, usually it's transliterations, meaning it sounds English but given a Spanish flair to it because we don't have the word in Spanish. This happens a lot on non romantic ( languages that derive from Latin) language.",
"Well if you're from Snoqualmie Washington and you slipped on some snow and fell on your tuckus it might be a faux pas but you're no prima donna so c'est la vie! English sentence with American Indian, French, Yiddish, and Italian loan words. Loan words are small expressions borrowed from another language and most languages have them. English itself is made up of older languages that themselves had loan words from Latin, Francish, Norse, Germanic, Saxon, and other languages.",
"If the topic discussed was gaming there will be a lot of random words from english. We usually take a word like 'farm' and make a verb out of it like 'farmear'. 'Level-up' becomes 'levelear', and some memes only work in english so we use them as is."
],
"score": [
48,
25,
12,
10,
10,
6,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6gcssx | Why is nationalism more prevalent in Scotland than in Wales or England? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dipcwc3"
],
"text": [
"England does not have its own government. It is directly controlled by the UK Parliament. That does not give much room for them to have an independent national spirit outside of the UK as a whole. Wales I do not have much of an answer for though."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6gcyp9 | Why has the Weather Channel and National Geographic not gone through the same network decay as Animal Planet, History Channel, or Discovery Channel? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dipc7t2",
"dipc7rf"
],
"text": [
"Actually, the Weather channel went through some serious decay and programming changes that really hurt them with viewers and in their pocketbook. They were showing reality shows, movies, and other content like that in an effort to become more relevant. There was some business changes there, and then they got a new CEO who got finally rid of their non-weather programming, and went back to their traditional weather programs in late 2015-ish. Nat Geo definitely has had some varied content around it too (but you probably don't/didn't watch it). But now that Fox owns it, they have said they want to get it back to essentially their version of the Discovery channel, which it kinda is already, but they want their own.",
"i will disagree with the weather channel, at least for me, since at least where i lived, it turned into non stop 'lifegaurd, and i should've died' shows as for nat-geo, give it time, decay will set in since its an inevitable thing, it may be a long time but it will happen"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6gdek3 | If you are listening to a song, in say, Mandarin, how do you know what "form" of a word the singer is using if the song doesn't allow for intonation? | Do you just have to guess? Or does it depend on the language/context of the song. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dipj2vk"
],
"text": [
"It's pretty much based on context. Taking Mandarin as an example, there's hundreds if not thousands of pairs of words which sound exactly the same, including intonation (for example, the words for 'road' and 'deer' are both 'lu4' where the number is one of four intonations). Some ambiguity can be removed with the use of phrases, such as 'ma3 lu4', which specifically refers to a road. Otherwise, context is key."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6gdku3 | Why is it socially unacceptable to call your parents by their first name? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diph866",
"dipngf4"
],
"text": [
"For parents it implies that you no longer consider them parents. It basically says that they are meaningless to you and that you no longer love them.",
"Because calling your parents by their name instead of mom and dad breaks the association with family. Its like the nicknames we share with our brothers, sisters and cousins. They are names that show affection, a commonness and devotion. Calling them by their first names relegates them to being more like a friend or stranger."
],
"score": [
11,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6gdulh | why is mint the preferred flavour for "fresh" breath? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dipr89g"
],
"text": [
"There's a really good case study in \"The Power of Habit\" by Charles Duhigg on how Claude Hopkins marketed the idea of \"film\" on your teeth, and discovered that consumers responded to the tingly feeling of the mint toothpaste. The basic idea was that the morning \"film\" on your teeth triggered you to want to use minty toothpaste to get that tingly/clean feeling. This article has a good overview: URL_0"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://heleo.com/the-minty-fresh-psychology-behind-americas-toothpaste-obsession/1196/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6ge0f4 | Why is the US such a strong cultural influencer? | Cross-pollination of cultures is inevitable but the US seems to globally influence more so than any other country today. This could be because the US is a global superpower, but would that necessarily make its culture permeate as it does? Examples include jazz, McDonald's™, Hollywood, Disney™, the T-shirt, Modernism, grunge, the words *nerd* and *OK*, Pop Art, Rap, Apple™, the Caesar salad, and the Ford Motor Company™. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dipkzp7",
"diplrvp"
],
"text": [
"1. We're a free society. Dictatorships tend not to encourage the artistic expression that leads to the movies, music, etc that gains international audiences. 2. The US has also always had a culture of individuality, which I think plays a large role in magnifying the entertainment output I mentioned above. Authors, comedians, business people (just look at Trump's career)...Americans have always had a hunger for fame and success. We're also a little arrogant too, which helps many of us achieve so much. This isn't necessarily the same with other cultures. Some cultures place much more emphasis on humility and conformism (in Japan, for example, there is an old adage: \"the hammer that sticks up gets nailed down.\") 3. We're a wealthy enough society that we can spend a large amount of money creating things like Facebook and Las Vegas and other cultural icons that gain worldwide prominence. 4. The US has a large enough population that, statistically, we're going to have much larger raw numbers of people who are bold enough, smart enough, and creative enough (everyone from Mark Zuckerberg to Elvis Presley) to create the sorts of products and entertainment that people across the world want to share in. 5. We speak English which has been the international language since the end of WW2.",
"A big part of it is what you mentioned - the United States is currently the world's only superpower. The country's gross domestic product (a measure of a country's productivity) is far higher than other countries'. Because of this, the corporations originating from America had a vast advantage on becoming successful in their early days compared to corporations created in less powerful countries. Over a series of decades, these corporations used their power to market their goods and services worldwide (again, an opportunity that most other countries could not provide). So a lot of American products and brands became well-known worldwide. Due to the high costs of advertising and distribution, these brands have tended to encounter little international competition (at least until the 1990's). So they established a powerful foothold, and were able to \"set the agenda\" on pop culture and modern society at large."
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6geh83 | Bedouins cover their whole body with loose clothing to protect from the heat. Why dоn't tribes from sub-Saharan Africa, Australia and other hot places do the same? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diq3w0w",
"dipokyy",
"dippnc2"
],
"text": [
"I live in Southern Arizona so I know about living in a desert. I would never wear shorts. Loose, light clothes protect the skin. Think sunscreen you wear instead of apply. If the fabric is light and loose, it doesn't stick to the skin or make you that much warmer. This works in hot but arid areas. Humidity is a completely different issue from heat. I would never be able to use this tactic if we have humidity.",
"Well, in Australia, our tribes tend to wear flannel and small shorts with symbols and colors displaying the geographical location that the wearer belongs to. The flannel is able to be worn half buttoned or completely open, offering protection from the sun on their arms and shoulders, and leaving an area of exposed body in which the wind can cool. At night, the flannel is exceptional for holding and maintaining body heat throughout the evening.",
"Because it doesn't protect you from the heat, it protects you from the heat that the sun would give you. Sub Saharan Africa is not actually that hot in most places, and it's not nearly as sunny. Full body covering wouldn't help so much there, but it would get quite miserable and sticky real quick."
],
"score": [
29,
27,
15
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6gf78u | When and Where did the waiving of a white flag indicate you are intending to surrender? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diptm8t",
"diqgrcv",
"diqfj59"
],
"text": [
"It doesn't. A white flag is a sign of peaceful intention, usually a request for conversation. This may be the offering of terms of surrender or the allowance of wounded to be cleared from the field of battle etc.",
"The popularity of the [white flag of truce or surrender]( URL_0 ) arose independently during the Eastern Han Dynasty (25-220AD) and in Rome as recorded by Cornelius Tacitus in his Histories in 109AD. Specifically he mentions The Second Battle of Cremona, fought between the Vitellians and the Vespasians in A.D. 69.",
"Well, the waving of a cloth has been used as an attention getter for a long time, because it draws the eye and isn't threatening. Next, white is an eye-catching color against most backgrounds. Next, conveniently, undyed cotton and wool are white, two very predominate clothing materials, and most everyone used to wear white undershirts. So using a white shirt as a flag is a super convenient and widely accessible method of signaling for a talk. This is the same thing as American gangs like the crips and bloods using red and blue handkerchiefs for their gang symbols/colors. Very common items that are cheap and very versatile."
],
"score": [
177,
23,
12
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2003/03/why_do_surrendering_soldiers_wave_white_flags.html"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6gfffb | Why is the word "late" used to describe someone who is deceased? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dipup75"
],
"text": [
"One of the old meanings of \"late\" was \"occuring in the recent past\". Nowadays this meaning only really survives in the phrase \"of late\" and the adverb \"lately\". In this sense, when a person was described as late it meant that they had only recently died (i.e. they were a living person up until the recent past). And although it no longer fully carries the connotation of the death being in the recent past, it is still only really used for people who were alive in living memory (eg it would sound odd to refer to \"the late Ludwig van Beethoven\", just about OK to refer to \"the late Jimi Hendrix\", and fine to refer to \"the late Chuck Berry\")."
],
"score": [
138
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6gffto | Why were Saturday and Sunday chosen as the weekend? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dipur2z"
],
"text": [
"Western culture is largely based on Christianity. Christian doctrine says that God laboured for six days, creating the world, and then rested on the seventh day. This is the basis for why Christians work for six days and get to rest and worship their deity on the seventh. Saturday being part of the weekend is a very modern notion."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6gfgoq | Why is there a Holy Bible in every American hotel? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dipuf3e",
"dipuen1"
],
"text": [
"[there's a non-profit which exists to distribute bibles to hotels.]( URL_0 ) It's a way of proselytizing.",
"Because that's what the Gideons believe in doing. URL_0"
],
"score": [
8,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideons_International"
],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideons_International"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6gfkxv | Why is the cherry so widely used as the jackpot sign for slot machines? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dipw3jl"
],
"text": [
"There were candy machines that have out prizes early in the 20th century that gave out prizes when you won. Basically a slot machine for candy, which was usually gum. You would get different gum flavors for winning. Cherry gum was the most popular, so the best prize. Hence cherries being jackpot. URL_0"
],
"score": [
33
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.casino.org/blog/fruit-machines-got-fruit-symbols/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6gfpg7 | Why can you use a negative adverb to make an adjective more positive? Ex: Awfully good | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dipxhex",
"diq74n5",
"diqncvi",
"dipyzdy",
"dipx9h7",
"diq0dho"
],
"text": [
"The adjectives which spring to mind - awfully, terribly, dreadfully, frightfully, fearfully, scarily - all come from words related to fright. And this, I think, is because for many things we fear, that fear is mixed with respect - we both fear and respect the mighty power of nature; we both fear and respect a large predator; we both fear and respect whatever god we happen to believe in. So the comparison is being made with that - \"He is a terribly good footballer\" literally implies that he is so good that we must fear and respect his powers.",
"This reminds me of a technique in art and animation actually. Contrast is not only beautiful but it can act as an amplifier. In Animation, if you want to show a character smiling, you can first move the corners of the mouth down and then spring it back into a smile. The contrast gives the landing pose more impact. So my guess is that the contrasting adverb makes the landing adjective more impactful. It works both ways by the way: POSITIVE - Awfully Good NEGATIVE - Positively Awful EDIT: There's a lot of focus on \"Awe\", the problem is there are plenty of combinations not using \"Awe\", for example: POSITIVE - Insanely Good NEGATIVE - Incredibly Bad",
"We recently covered this in a linguistics class! It's basically all about intensification. I'm using English as an example, but other languages do this too. When we want to make a statement more intense, we put a word before it to emphasise it: E.g. Good = very good. But over time, people overuse the intensifier and it starts to lose its impact. So people use it more: E.g. Very, very good. This makes it lose its impact even quicker. So people look for another word to replace the overused word, the stronger, the better! In the Early Modern English period (c. 1450-1800), people started to use words to describe terrible things for emphasis, such as awfully good, terribly good, etc. These words originally had much stronger meanings than today - terrible meant something more like disastrous. But because we've used them for several hundred years, they are losing their strength too, and so we look for other terms to replace them to get the intense meaning. Using awful, as in OP's post, is sometimes called 'terrible emphasis' in linguistics. This is the same reason people use 'literally' for things like 'I will literally kill you' when they don't really mean they will kill someone. They are using a strong modifier for emphasis.",
"Remember that the root of awful is \"awe\". People overuse words like awesome and it cheapens it, but awe is mingled respect and terror. True awe is something that tingles your spine.",
"In this case, it's because \"awful\" (\"filled with awe\") had a positive connotation.",
"We do that in italian too. I feel like it makes the adjective bigger and stronger, as it hides something behind."
],
"score": [
531,
65,
64,
61,
8,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6gft2q | Why does the burial of the dead infer that a society believes in an afterlife? | I was told multiple times throughout my HS career that when a society buries its dead, that the society believed in an afterlife and was religious. To me, burying the dead just seems like a good idea. I wasn't told that in college, however I was a premedical major and didn't have to take history courses. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dipxytj",
"dipzigg"
],
"text": [
"> I was told multiple times throughout my HS career that when a society buries its dead, that the society believed in an afterlife and was religious. HS education isn't that great, just ignore that part of it. Burying dead is a good way to get rid of smelly corpses that attract vermin and are vectors for disease.",
"Well, HS lied. Ancient Greeks incinerated their dead, and they believed in afterlife. A better indicative of belief in afterlife is whether or not there is a ritual associated with disposing of a dead person. Christians, for example, have a burial service held by a priest, to somewhat ensure the dead person's soul departure from this world. I remember being told that people who haven't been given a proper funeral won't have their souls properly prepared for afterlife, like they just stay here as ghosts. Also, in my country it is customary to bury a dead relative three days after they died, because upon their death, their guardian angel will let them look back at their life on Earth for that same amount of time, before seeing them to God to be judged. You're right that burying the dead is a good idea. Disposing them in any way, be it by burial or cremation, generally is, because corpses stink, decay, and attract disease carrying pests."
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6gfxsm | If Puerto Rico votes to become a state, how would/could the US proceed? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diq279d",
"diq2o33",
"diqdle8",
"dipyyi6"
],
"text": [
"Legally speaking, voting to become a state is irrelevant. It is a signal that a territory is ready to become a state, but congress is under no obligation to act upon it. Similarly, congress could make PR a state even if it voted against it. The power rests solely in congress, any vote in the PR is purely symbolic.",
"Actually, with the referendum coming up tomorrow things are looking pretty ambiguous. Both the electorate and the administration feel like we could not be admitted anytime soon even though polls almost unanimously say that statehood will win with approx 65% of the vote with a 70% turnout. Thing is, as Puerto Rico's debt has piled up during the last two decades, Congress has become less and less trusted on the island because it has become a bit evident that they don't really want to admit PR to the Union. I say this mostly because of the last political status referendum held on 2012 was the first time in history that Statehood won and it was also the first time a referendum was dismissed by the Presidential Task Force on PR and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. That referendum did not result on action from Congress because it supposedly contained confusing ballot language and Obama simply included money for another referendum to be held tomorrow. This referendum has corrected any supposed confusing ballot language but the DOJ hasn't officially recognized it as valid probably because Jeff Sessions fears that PR as a state would be heavily democrat. The invisible factor behind this is that if this referendum were to be ignored and Congress again takes no action then support for independence would explode and disapproval towards the US would skyrocket which would honestly be horrible for the financial future of the island. So we'll see how tomorrow goes and I hope to god that this time statehood is achieved. u/kouhoutek raises a pretty good point, PR is in literally every way in the hands of Congress legally ever since the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act of 1950 which was drafted in order for the US to secure PR as an American stronghold in the Caribbean along with Cuba which had a puppet government until Castro got his way. EDIT: Credited u/kouhoutek with adding some info I missed.",
"It would take majority approval in the house, senate and signature from the president. This would almost certainly be opposed simply for the fact that it would change the balance of power in congress, by adding 2 senators who are almost 100% sure to be on the liberal side of things. There are numerous other reasons why it would be opposed, but that's one of the major ones.",
"Congress passes a law that says \"Puerto Rico is now a state\". Then the president signs it. Done"
],
"score": [
25,
22,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6ggcye | Why does American Congress seem so formal and droll compared to the Canadian and UK Parliaments? | It seems to me that the US Congress, the Senate and the House of course, are literally there to do their jobs and fail miserably at it or act all awkward. Either way it's a very formal affair. People talk in circles around each other and rarely does anyone raise their voice in a threatening manner. In contrast, I see dozens and dozens of clips from Canadian and British Parliaments being very loud, very aggressive in their condemnation of things, sometimes physically hostile, and more than willing to slide in jokes at a speaker's expense or to "take the piss out of them" while they're speaking. I'm not saying that this happens 24/7, but I get the feeling that their legislative bodies are not going to let 'formalities' get in the way of interjecting when something seems like a batshit crazy idea, nor will they let their contempt of something remain unspoken. I know that during our nation's fight over slavery one of our congressmen nearly beat another congressman to death with his cane, and that seemed to be the end of Congress shenanigans, but what's the deal? Is it simply that America's legislative branch is different from theirs? Is it cultural? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diq3448",
"diq43rn",
"diq23nk",
"diq1lis"
],
"text": [
"You're probably only ever seeing footage of Prime Minister's Questions, which is half an hour each week. This is essentially all for the benefit of the TV cameras, with the party leaders trying to score points against each other with witty soundbites. Questions from other MPs tend to be chosen to win favour with your party leader - praising or criticising some government policy as appropriate - or to show that they're raising some local issue with the PM. The actual debates the rest of the time are much more formal and dull.",
"\"droll\" means humorous. Did you mean \"dull\"? maybe Congress is droll, I dunno.",
"Getting into fights and arguments on the floor is utterly unprofessional. Any politician that does that does not deserve to be in office. The US literally has laws to prevent that from happening.",
"I don't know what the cause is, either, but let me make it clear: Americans find British legislative proceedings to be disgusting and unprofessional. The hooting and screaming and hissing alone are simply repugnant. It's unbecoming of the grave importance of representing the citizens. The first time I saw footage of Parliament, I thought the noise was coming from some kind of public gallery, but then I realized in shock that these were the actual representatives who were behaving in such a horrifyingly crass manner. The only way I could be more disgusted is if it were my own country. I mean, we Americans have no leg to stand on right now (COUGH*trump*COUGH). But I'm just saying."
],
"score": [
18,
7,
7,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6ghdv4 | Why perfume adverts never describe the smell itself but instead tell a short, other-worldly story? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diqaeyt",
"diq9ygf",
"diqbmeq",
"diqczm4"
],
"text": [
"They cannot hope to succeed in describing the smell enough to convince you to place an order. So what they have to do is get your attention strongly enough that when you're in the store, you'll remember their brand and give them a sniff.",
"It's hard to communicate how something smells with a visual ad. So they go over the top to look appealing as if to capture \"the smell\" which may be more interesting then saying \"smells like pineapples\" but that is more useful",
"One, describing smells is extremely tough, especially with complex scents. Read the descriptions for any perfume and see how you could never make that sound good in an ad, or really even imagine what it smells like. Second, the human mind most closely associates smells with memories. It's a lot easier for us to imagine the smell of a certain scene than \"Creamy, with appealing savoury notes of cured meat and even a touch of horseradish, with some subtle smoke lurking in the background.\" That's the nosing notes I found for the scotch on my desk.",
"As David Bowie once observed - writing about music is like tap-dancing about architecture. The same applies to smells."
],
"score": [
9,
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6gi4xi | Why is it so common, in America, to have calendar weeks starting from Sunday | In Britain, weeks are always displayed as starting from Monday! | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diqfzi0",
"diqj04o",
"diqiie9",
"diqgln9"
],
"text": [
"The week is designed according to Genesis. On the first day the Sun was created (Sunday), and so on through six days of creation. On the seventh day God rested (the original Jewish sabbath, Saturday).",
"We also write our dates strangely too: MM/DD/YYYY WTF is up with that?!",
"I've always thought it should start with Monday. Saturday and Sunday are called the weekend, not weekendandbeginning. So wtf.",
"Traditionally there was a 6 day work week. So naturally you would either have the common day off as either the first day of the week or the last day of the week. When you had a 6 day work week it really didn't make a difference. Now with a 5 day work week the weekend is split between 2 weeks but the tradition hangs on because it looks odd to Americans and Canadians."
],
"score": [
18,
5,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6gk1lp | Do people who speak English fluently with a foreign accent have a hard time understanding those with an American accent? | I was in an Uber the other day and had a hard time understanding my driver, who spoke with a Southeast Asian accent. It also seemed that he had a hard time understanding me as well, and that made me wonder if people who understand and are fluent in English, but speak with an accent have difficulty understanding an American accent. Additionally, do people who speak English with a different accent (say Chinese) understand each others accents when speaking English? Thanks! | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diqxf65",
"diqx09k"
],
"text": [
"General American (the accent used in the Midwest and West) is widely understood because it is the accent predominantly used in American media. I speak this accent, and most people comment that I'm easier to understand than speakers of British English, with the exception of ESL students whose previous teachers were all British or from former British colonies. However, that is only one American accent. Even as a native speaker of General American English, it was difficult for me to clearly understand people from the US South, as well as speakers of African American Vernacular English because of a lack of exposure to people using it in the Midwest where I grew up, and in the media in general. Likewise, I have to concentrate when listening to people with a strong Scottish accent. I've worked as an ESL teacher for a time, and I found that students who shared a common language would often make the same mistakes when speaking English, so they would be able to understand one another. Likewise, when I was in China, I would speak Mandarin Chinese with other foreigners with poor pronunciation and lack of tones. Foreigners studying Chinese would often figure out what was meant based off of context, and use English grammar rules for Chinese. Meanwhile, native speakers of Mandarin Chinese would be perplexed that we could communicate with one another, because they would have a hard time understanding our pronunciation and grammar mistakes because tone and word order is extremely important for meaning.",
"As I foriegn speaker, and not a native speaker, I find it easiest to understand other non native speakers, and hardest native UK and US soeakers. English in TV and moviesnis easy to understand, but when native speajers speak, they use slang, words I've never heard before, they pronounce words wierdly etc. People who have learned to speak English have all learned proper Oxford English bin most cases, and they are all though pronunciation the same way. Then enter native apeakers with a strong southern or cockney accent and I don't understand jack. Imagine you were learning a language and you spoke and understood proper useage (like on national radio or television, where no slang is used at all), and then you come to a village somewhere rural, you wouldn't understand anything. I find it hard to understand people from 150km away and they're still speaking the same language, just different accent."
],
"score": [
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6gkn46 | How do names work in sign language? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dir2zq9",
"dir2640",
"dir3sxf"
],
"text": [
"Just as all other communication occurs in this language, names are expressed visually. Sure they can be spelled out using signed alphabet letters, but that's so phonetic and not really how sign language works. If my hearing name is Roxanne and my right eye is a lazy eye, I can almost guarantee you my signed name will have something to do with an \"R\" pressing against my right eye. Or, if my hearing name is Ashley and I have huge breasts, my signed name might honestly be something like an \"A\" in each hand motioned around the chest area. Dat shit be visual.",
"Fluent in ASL here, ties with Deaf community. Your sign name is normally given to you, kinda like a nickname as stated prior.",
"If you don't have a name sign, you introduce yourself by fingerspelling your name. If you do have a name sign, first you fingerspell your name, then you show your name sign. Name signs are always given, by a Deaf person, you can't give them to yourself."
],
"score": [
25,
13,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6gm240 | When did decade-themed spirit days begin, and why are the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s used so often? | So in America schools will often have spirit days where students are encouraged to dress according to a theme. Often they pick a decade for everyone to dress like. I've only seen schools doing 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s days never 90s or later. When did these decade days become popular and when do you think we will see 90s/00s/10s days if at all? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dirfvyd"
],
"text": [
"It's too recent for the 90s to have one single cohesive culture. You have grunge in the earlier part but you also have a big rise in rap culture. even the eighties has disco, but metalheads know the 80s as the explosion of metal. Basically it takes time for history to filter through decades and create a mostly unified cultural memory."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6gm9gb | How did "throat" languages like arabic & german originate? Why the hard way to communicate ? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dirca3m",
"direa26",
"dirixbo"
],
"text": [
"Guttural sounds (the German 'r' and 'she sounds, for example) are not in and of themselves particularly difficult to make. It's just that English doesn't have them, so you never learned them as a baby.",
"Well your question doesn't make much sense but I will try to explain. German and Arabic are not \"throat\" languages, what you might hear as \"throaty\" sounds in German are for example the [x] (a velar fricative) or the [r] (an uvular trill). English has velar and glottal consonants of its own, like h, k, g and ng for example but you don't perceive them as \"guttural\" because they appear in your native language. To a native speaker the \"throaty\" consonants are no more difficult to pronounce than the [θ] and [ð] (that is \"th\" sounds) are to you. German and English are actually closely related and you can see that in many cognate words. The German [x] and [ç] (the \"ch\" sounds) are often found as \"gh\" in English cognates: lachen - laugh dachte - thought durch - through doch - though Nacht - night nach - nigh Knecht - knight Licht - light Macht - might Wicht - wight Recht - right This \"gh\" was originally pronounced similiar to the German consonants, but the pronounciation changed in the last 500 years. EDIT: Have some reconstructed Old English (more than 1000 years ago) pronounciation: URL_0 tl;dr Those languages aren't more \"throat\" than English or harder to pronounce, they just sound weird to you because you are not a native speaker. English and German are closly related and English once had similiar consonants.",
"well with german you probably think of the R sound well besides from the point that if you train it it isnt hard to pronounce, the guttural R (The Hitler R) is only used in southern variants of german, most people who speak a northern variant are unable to pronounce it, i needed several months to learn it."
],
"score": [
13,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLJGTYkEKLI"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6gmc9a | Why has the US not had a dictator yet? | Many other countries have had similar government structures yet they've had elected leaders manipulate the system to either amend the constitution so that they can serve forever or they use the military to seize power. Why has this not happened in the US? I can definitely think of several opportunities that a president could've used to give themselves emergency powers or essentially make the position of president into a much more powerful office. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dircmnb",
"dirh4qc",
"direjn1",
"dirgt4d",
"dirn68y"
],
"text": [
"It would have to be cloaked in the guise of \"for the good of the people\" in a moment of intense crisis. This is not outside the realm of possibility given many elected officials cravings for \"crisis\" and how they covet that. However, it would likely be such an unpopular move that the repercussions internally, not just from the electorate, but from the military in particular, would mean that it would lead to a coup. If that were to happen, I have the sense that the military would rapidly restore the processes which currently exist as they recognize the damage that such instability would create in all of their missions.",
"The writers of our Constitution cleverly created a \"balance of powers\" situation where no one part of the government has enough power for the others to be unable to stop it. So our government is much better at doing nothing, than at actually taking forceful steps in any direction. In addition, US children are taught about the importance and value of democracy from a very young age -- it's almost like a religion. So when someone tries to tamper with democracy, they get a lot of resistance. In addition, *some* people think that the extensive right to bear arms in the US creates a limiting force, since any police group seeking to impose power unlawfully would risk facing serious armed resistance.",
"It might help to understand democracy as a form of market. While technically people might only get one vote, in reality democracy works just like a dictatorship: the people with power get 'real' votes and the rest of the people get to vote for who the people with power offer as options. What this means is that the difference between democracy and dictatorship is largely a matter of how *many* people with power there are. If 90% of your nation's economic activity is dependent on oil reserves, that means the people who control those reserves control the country. If you want to lead that country, the only people you need to appease are the people who control the oil. Similarly, if virtually everyone in your nation lives in abject poverty, you just have to be the guys with the guns to rule. In contrast, if you've got a broad and diverse economy, there are simply too many power players you'd need to appease to maintain a dictatorship. So you end up 'leading from behind' - you let the various players bicker amongst themselves and act as the mediator between their interests.",
"Dictators tend to come to power when a country has a weak political system or weak political tradition. The USA has a long tradition of democratic (or at least oligarchic) systems of rule, going back to colonial times. Countries that have been taken over by dictators have been ones without strong democratic traditions or ones that went through revolutions. You can see that with 20th century Germany (monarchy fell cause of WWI and replaced by weak republic), for example.",
"The closest we got was F.D.R. but then he died and they constricted the amount of terms you can even rule for."
],
"score": [
12,
12,
7,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6gmi88 | why do they make movies based off books that are not similar to the book at all? When they know people will be upset with it. | Movies like Harry Potter, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, and The Green Mile are some of the greatest movies ever and so iconic because they were based on the book off the novel that did so great in the first place. With movies like Percy Jackson they changed the storyline so much, it brings into the question the old saying. "I it ain't broke don't fix it." I can only imagine how popular and great a Percy Jackson movie would have been based on the book with very little changed for cinematic purposes. I just can't understand why they would think it would be such a great idea to change things so much. I can't think of any other off the top of my head but I know there's plenty out there. I don't remember a whole lot about the Percy Jackson movie but I remember I hated it and things were just off that shouldn't have been off. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dirfd1m",
"dirghmm"
],
"text": [
"They are using the author's name and fame to sell a movie. A perfect example is *I, Robot* - older readers and hardcore sci-fi fans ***ran*** to the theaters to watch this travesty of manipulation. The book is a collection of short stories. The only pieces in the movie that have anything to do with Asimov are Susan Calvin's name and the positronic brain.",
"First of all a book is more elaborate than a movie. A book has practically no end time , you can read it completely within a day for can do it for years, it can keep you involved after you read first ten pages then go for a lunch or call a day off and then again engage with your mind. But when it comes to movies it had a time bracket, it wants to get your attention the whole time for the time span. And in doing so , some experiments fail, may be most fail because people have gone through the book and it doesn't match up with what they saw, ideally may be a television series based on books might be successful in that format."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6gmss4 | Why do cities in China still have such high pollution when they have so many bike users? | Before Chinese car ownership became popular in 2000s, most commuters biked, like in this photo of Shanghai: URL_0 China seems to be one of the most bike friendly cities in the world as many people all depended upon it for transportation Why is the air quality in Chinese cities still so bad when biking is so dominant there? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dirgk42"
],
"text": [
"Most Chinese pollution is particulate based. Mainly from the burning of coal (although dust produced from lots of construction work adds to the effect). Chinese emission regulations are actually stricter than in the US from a design perspective however they seem to be much, much more lenient / not enforced when in operation. In the West however pollution is more chemical based such as NOx and SOx from vehicles."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6gn62r | Why do we enjoy depressing/sad stories (movies, books, gamers, etc.)? | Is it because they make us feel better about our own problems or what? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diriwwv",
"dirwq8z"
],
"text": [
"Yes, they help us notice our own sad feelings, which we often push aside. Looking at *someone else* being sad is sometimes more tolerable than directly confronting a sad thing in our own life that we need to notice.",
"I've thought about this before, my ideas: 1. Maybe it's cathartic to release feelings of sadness through a medium that doesn't affect our real lives 2. Crying actually releases endorphins which makes you feel better afterwards 3. Many of us are really good at empathising and we feel so drawn into a good book/film etc. that the story feels real and moves us. We like to feel things. 4. Some people like to wallow/feel sorry for themselves and this could be an extension of that for them, even intensifying those feelings. 5. To make us feel better about our own lives (Oops, the list got more and more pessimistic.)"
],
"score": [
11,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6gnb7x | why are short stay romantic hotels not common in the U.S.? (NSFW) | I've lived in the US for almost 10 years and I have never seen decent low price short stay hotels where people could go have sex. In Mexico city there are a lot of motels that offer privacy, clean rooms, discrete room service, charging for just few hours stay and depending on the price they can have pool or jacuzzi inside the room. They are very popular there. In the US the closest to that that I have seen is cheap motels but they charge for the night an are usually not in great conditions. Is it that there is no market for such places or are they against the law? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dirk1vw",
"dirl0el",
"dirvr8l",
"dirvk0x",
"dirlo74",
"dis0cl4"
],
"text": [
"Americans like to pretend this would offend their morals while basically being bereft of actual morals that matter.",
"Ordinary hotels and motels are so common that they meet this need adequately. The only extra benefit of a short-stay hotel is a cost savings, but motels are already pretty cheap.",
"I do think there would be a market for this in the US, to be honest. IME, a cheap hotel room in the US looks and smells like a cheap hotel room, and is not somewhere I would seek out for a romantic encounter with my husband. But it would be cool to have access to a place as the OP described, for lunchtime quickies and such. We have two young children and have different work schedules. Timing is tough.",
"\"No-tell motels\" exist in parts of cities where there is more prostitution, but there are fewer than there used to be. There are plenty of budget motels that rent out cheaply by the day, though. There may be vice laws in some cities that discourage hourly rates in motels and hotels in order to combat prostitution. \"[In the United States and Canada, certain motels in low-income areas often serve similar functions as a Japanese love hotel. Colloquially known as \"no-tell motels\", these are becoming scarce as local laws increasingly require renters' identification information to be recorded and given to law enforcement agencies. However, the Supreme Court recently struck down warrantless searches of hotel records]( URL_0 )\" Prostitution aside, Americans just tend to go to their own places, if they're young they get together at one another's houses if the parents are at work, or...cars parked in concealed locations.",
"That's basicslly what every shady hotel is for. There isn't really a need for a chain specifically for one night stands when you have a dozen or so hotels of varying price within a town.",
"The reason they're popular in a lot of parts in the world is because of the lack of privacy. In Japan, you live in a small apartment and it's not uncommon to live with your parents even as an adult. Love hotels provide a discrete getaway that you may not have at home. In the US, shady motels and what not already fill such a role for those who need it."
],
"score": [
30,
6,
5,
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_hotel"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6gncxp | What do Christians believe happened to people who lived before Jesus? Did they all go to hell? | So basically I grew up in a kinda Christian family, we weren't that serious but we still went to church almost every week. A lot of the messages in the church were about how no human being could live up to God's expectations for us, and we were all sinners doomed for hell. But then Jesus came along and took the punishment for us so we could have eternal life. But what does that mean for the people who lived before Jesus? Since none of them could live up to God's rules, did all of them go to hell? Even people like Noah? Edit: life not belief | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dirkleu",
"dirkgfv",
"dis26u0",
"dirlwxk"
],
"text": [
"\"Christians\" is actually a really, really broad category encompassing a wide variety of sects, and it will depend on the particular sect's theology. Also, individual Christians often believe and practice very differently from what their sect or denomination teaches. So, any answer I can give about any given denomination functionally falls apart when the particular opinion of Joe Q. Methodist down the street is taken into account. *However,* that said, I would point out the traditional belief in the [Harrowing of Hell]( URL_0 ), which addresses this while answering the age-old question of exactly what Jesus was doing while dead. In short, Jesus went down to Hell and freed all those who were destined for salvation but died before he could bring it.",
"They sacrificed to God, which is the significance of Jesus. He was the ultimate sacrifice. They also adhered to the laws strictly in fear of punishment. Funny enough though they didn't fear hell, because that wasn't a known concept to the abrahamic religions until Christianity",
"God has always desired faith, as Paul makes clear in his Epistle to the Romans. The believers before Christ believed in a Messiah to come -- they had faith that God would deliver upon His promise. Today, we as Christians believe in a Messiah who came, died and rose again and will at a later time (that we do not know) return. It's the same faith in the same Messiah.",
"I cannot speak for all Christianity, but this is the reason that Mormons have the practice of Baptisms for the Dead. In order for God to be a just God, all who ever lived must have the opportunity to accept His Son and receive the ordinance of baptism (John 3:5 says: \"except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”). We believe that it is up to the dead to accept or reject what was done on their behalf."
],
"score": [
9,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowing_of_Hell"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6gnpcm | why does it seem like popular culture (Games, movies, etc.) describes future as dystopia? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diroj5b",
"dirv7hs"
],
"text": [
"There isn't a lot of conflict in a Utopia by its very definition, and conflict drives narrative. That's not to say it's impossible, there are plenty of utopian scifi series (the Iain M Banks series about The Culture springs to mind).",
"The thing about sci-fi -- at least the famous works -- is they're usually making a statement or criticism about current society in the form of describing the future. Almost the entire genre is an allegory about the dangers of dependence on technology, manipulating the environment, the rise of political totalitarianism, etc. Take Jurassic Park, which shows a potential really cool use for then-cutting edge genetics tools and then how it could go hopelessly wrong. You come away from that book/movie thinking \"whoa, maybe humans are too confident in our ability to control nature, and we should be careful with this new genetics research\" which is the whole point of the story. Jurassic Park is actually a rare example that's not a total dystopia, because usually the easiest way to get a point across is to exaggerate it. That's why in the book Snow Crash you have the commercialization of America ridiculed with images of snipers from competing freeway companies shooting at each other on an overpass, or why in Blade Runner future LA is an incredibly dark, violent place with a bunch of expressionless people hurrying about threatening to swallow up the action. FWIW, if I remember my lit classes well, dystopias got more popular post Star Wars, where a futuristic galaxy was shown as being dirty, crime-ridden, and controlled by a totalitarian Empire. Then you had Blade Runner after that and then an explosion of books and movies on the subject."
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6go3bz | If someone is wrongfully imprisoned for a period of time and then released after proven innocent, how is their compensation calculated? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dirs6ie"
],
"text": [
"Depends on the state. [Each state has different statutes governing this] ( URL_0 ). Also, several states have no statutes at all, meaning that if you get wrongfully convinced there, you have no automatic right to recourse. I believe (but am not 100% on it) that you can take the state to civil court, but obviously, many people who were wrongfully imprisoned don't always have the means to do that."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.wrongfulconvictionlawyers.com/state-statutes/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6gp41e | Why are movie/tv film makers choosing such dark lighting? | I used to think it was just because I was viewing on a device, but it's frustrating to watch Game of Thrones or a superhero/action movie and I can't see anything. The Screen is basically black for long stretches of film with characters/set barely lit. I get that its about tone...but it seems like every film/show even the "fun" ones. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dirzbtu"
],
"text": [
"My guess? When you're dealing with a lot of makeup, prosthesis, special effects its easier to hide flaws. You can see acne under makeup in high def, you couldn't really see that back in the day. Just a guess."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6gpd0z | Were Ancient Egyptians, African Or Middle Eastern? | Basically what I am asking is, how historically accurate is Assassin’s Creed: Origins? The community seemed very divided on the character’s heritage and I am not a history buff. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dis1qfo"
],
"text": [
"All of the above. Seas were not barriers to ancient societies, but highways. Along the north of Africa, the Middle East, and for a while the South of Europe, Mediterranean features were common. People travelled and moved in those areas. Egypt pushed south as far as Ethiopia, and people of the darkest shades of skin were also Egyptian. Prior to the colonial age, humanity didn't really believe there was such a thing as race. As such, empires like Egypt were multiethnic and multiracial, with people in an area being whatever colour they happened to be. Some cities in Egypt were predominantly Mediterranean, others dark skinned, and others were a mix. Statues of Pharaoh Dynasties show features that are sometimes Mediterranean, sometimes African. The families that ruled sometimes hailed from upper egypt, and sometimes from lower egypt. So, really, in the same way that Belgium is both German and French but also it's own thing, Egypt was both African and Mediterranean and also it's own thing, and didn't have a racial divide."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6gpe77 | Why is the age of consent in some countries such as Japan and Mexico so low compared to countries like the US? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dise2p2",
"dis88cr"
],
"text": [
"I live in Mexico and I do think the age of consent should be higher (currently its 18). Most teens start having sexual experiences around the age of 15 (mostly on poor neighborhoods where there are gangs involved) thus, leading to low education and complicated family scenarios.",
"In Japan, the national government leaves it up to municipalities, who enforce higher ages such as 17. To some degree this also happens at a state level in Mexico. However, to answer your question more broadly: historically many societies have felt that sexual activity is permissible after puberty. It's only in the last century or so that many countries (such as the USA) have decided otherwise, based on ideas of *emotional maturity* or the need to get an education before parenting; these were not considered important factors historically."
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6gpgqa | Why is / r/Politics so left-wing biased? Shouldn't a sub with that name be as neutral as possible? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dis2gsm"
],
"text": [
"If you want unbiased, an internet site who's primary demographic is tech savvy young urban Americans is a terrible place to go. That's about as hard left leaning group as you are likely to get without polling a Manhattan gay bar."
],
"score": [
20
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6gri4r | If a Muslim is an adherent of Islam, why do they say that Muslims wore hijabs BEFORE Islam? | I always thought that we call Muslims people who follow Islam. But recently I stumbled upon an article where they wrote that Muslim women used to wear hijab before Islam was created. What does that mean? Is Muslim a synonym of Islamist or there is a difference? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dishefm"
],
"text": [
"They probably mean that women in the middle east wore hijabs before Islam existed. Islam didn't come from nowhere, it incorporated existing cultural practices and beliefs. Technically those women back then weren't Muslims, but they were from same the culture that Islam would later come from."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6grykr | As a German with not much knowledge about the US, please explain why Florida is so often made fun of/spoken badly about | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diskd2q",
"disopfu",
"disp33i",
"disknsp",
"disld7s",
"disn25a",
"dismz91",
"disp4ot"
],
"text": [
"There are laws in Florida that arrests are a matter of public record so they end up in the newspaper. Every state and country has idiots doing stupid things but in Florida if they get arrested it goes in the newspaper for everyone to see. This makes it seem like these things happen way more often in Florida when really its just about reporting.",
"Floridian here. Florida is the third most populous state, but unlike Texas and (arguably) California, Florida is an intense, roiling melting pot of cultures. You've got the antebellum southern folk, wealthy elderly retirees, hispanic immigrants, hyperliberal urban types, swamp people, spring breakers, Canadian tourists, multigenerational farmers, aerospace nerds etc. etc. etc. all tumbling together in sweltering heat with lax prescription laws, laid-back atmospheres, and easy media access to public record. It's messy and beautiful and intensely strange. Highly recommend.",
"Florida has very, very open public records laws. There's not much here that you can't request, assuming you know who and how to ask. As a result, records of arrests are easily obtained. I think it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that folks expect weird things to occur in Florida, and it's very easy to find out about anything unusual to a degree that such stories proliferate. Florida also, I think, serves as an interesting melting pot of many different types throughout the country. It's said that the I-4 corridor often reflects voting patterns for the country at large. And I believe it. Our state has affluent areas and poor areas, rural and urban areas, hills and beaches.",
"Actually, I think there is a word in German for this, Fremdschämen. Florida legislated what they call \"sunshine laws\" which make make internal government working part of the open public record. Lots of retired folks with lots of time spend some of it sharing and debating the most trivial of notions. When the rest of the US observes this behavior, it makes us somewhat ashamed.",
"Along with what others have said about the legislature for open records, Florida also has one of the worst school systems in the USA and is a big contributor to the \"dumb American\" stereotype",
"Mostly because arrest records in Florida are public. You often hear about stupid stuff that people have done in Florida. A headline like \"Drunk man tackles bear after believing that bear insulted his mother\". And maybe Florida does have an unusual proportion of idiots, but the main thing is that everything they get arrested for can be seen by anyone.",
"Not American, but I believe Florida really spans the spectrum of income levels, education etc. Big modern cities with international tourism and swamp people living off the land. Add an opiate epidemic and tense race relations and shit gets ridiculous.",
"I would also add that there are always certain regions that get made fun of--one of my favorite German comedians, Otto Waalkes, made his career playing off stereotypes about Frisians, for instance. In the US, there are stereotypes about people in the southern states that they're backwards, not very bright, and quite frankly a little nuts. Combine that with the open records laws in Florida others have mentioned and you get comedy gold. Note: I grew up in the midwestern US but lived in Texas nearly 20 years. I can tell you there are people that do their best to live up to the backward hillbilly stereotypes."
],
"score": [
145,
59,
22,
15,
8,
8,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6gs4ha | How do fictional TV shows/movies reference actual institutions in a negative light without that being defamation? | I've been marathon watching Law and Order SVU and there are several episodes where, for example, Hudson University is implicated in fictional rape cases and the detectives are harping on the school for not acting on rape complaints that occurred on campus. Why would the school agree to be featured in a negative way like that? Do shows or movies have to ask permission to use brands or names of institutions in their shows? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"disli1u"
],
"text": [
"Hudson University is a fictional place. It doesn't exist. Law and Order specifically invented it for this reason: they didn't want to get involved in any sort of defamation suits."
],
"score": [
15
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6gs5nu | When did straight white teeth become a status symbol? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dism1tc",
"dismyih",
"disoc12",
"dispa1m",
"disn0bt",
"disrq51"
],
"text": [
"I'm guessing this is a thing in the States? As with so many things, it probably started to become a status symbol as soon as famous people started doing it. This being said, the super white teeth American TV stars and politicians tend to have is not really a thing here in Europe (is this changing?). So it's not a status symbol everywhere. Even teeth you take very good care of should have a slightly yellow tint to them. It's the natural color of the teeth. By making them completely white you're making them look like something that isn't the color of teeth.",
"Generally, things become a status symbol if rich people can afford them easily and others can't.",
"Less a status symbol and more a part of being attractive - like silky hair and smooth jawline... it's about our genetic attraction to symmetrical people. Symmetry = healthy genes, at least as far as we can see at a glance. It isn't sudden either, we've always been more attracted to the straight-toothed than the gnarly people. What's sudden (in genetic timelines) is the medical technology to straighten teeth, and also various cosmetic surgeries to make you \"more attractive\" - however you think that's measured. Personally, I would never want my wife to look like Melania Trump at that age, uncanniness is not sexy.",
"It's only within the past 20 years or so that it's gotten really popular in the US. You can see popular actors with crooked teeth early in their careers that now have perfect teeth. It's a sign that the person has the time and money to take care of their teeth. Kinda like how being pale was considered super attractive (meant you didn't have to work outside) but now being tan is considered more attractive (means you have time to go outside or tan). Same with being overweight back in the day (had the money to actually eat).",
"I understand the concept of having straighter teeth, for the ease of cleaning and making them last longer. Teeth are also one of the first things that I and, I'm sure, many others notice when conversing. It's probably just a cultural thing though. When it comes to pearl white teeth, they almost look fake in my opinion. It's normal for teeth to have a yellowish tint. Edit: More than not white teeth are probably a symbol like others have said.",
"TL;DR: basically forever. 1. Before the modern era, a full set of straight, white teeth was a lot less common than they are today. Being a lot more attractive than rotten/missing teeth, it's not hard to see why this might have been prized. 2. Poor dental health can be indicative of lack of access to adequate nutrition. There are several chronic nutritional disorders, such as scurvy, that can lead to the loosening or outright loss of teeth. Poor sanitary conditions are also bad for dental health. Someone with good teeth presumably didn't lack for food or clean living conditions, suggesting at least moderate affluence in addition to decent genes/luck. 3. Related to both of the above, though today's media culture inundates us with images of \"perfect\" models, no such system existed before the modern era. Standards were a lot lower. Anything that tended to indicate that someone was *basically healthy* was perceived as very attractive."
],
"score": [
89,
39,
30,
11,
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6gsjba | What is the difference between a burka, niqab and hijab? and why do some women choose to wear one over the others? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"disp4ce",
"disp9q3",
"disthwe"
],
"text": [
"Burka = Head to toe cover, including mesh over eyes Niqab = Head to toe veil, eyes show Hijab = Head cover, worn in addition to clothes. [see]( URL_0 )",
"Burka covers your entire body except the hands and feet. Niqab coveres everything apart from your hands and feet and eyes. Hijab covers your hair, neck and chest. All depends on how modest one wants to be primarily, what may be expected of them by family, or their degree of religious devotion sometimes. The Koran only really requires women to cover their chests ~~and heads (if I remember right)~~. In some countries, you're required one or the other when going outside of your home. Edit: fixed what each one covers - thanks for pointing out my mistake :) Edit: I didn't remember right. It's just chests in the Koran (or Quran, I've seen it spelt Koran more often personally.) Hadiths added veiling. Thanks for the clarification :)",
"If I answer this like i see it I'll sound like a dick and I can speak for all Muslims. Here in Dubai (most of UAE) most of the women have no choice of who they marry, if they marry anyone other than and Emirati they lose their passport. I have been to a few local wedding, not something most westerners would be comfortable at. The family decides who you marry and the government pays that family (husband's) a very nice payment for the first house. They will decide what you wear and you will do it. Edit: can't speak for all Muslims"
],
"score": [
15,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/5785816/data/what-are-the-differences-between-the-burka%2C-niqab-and-hijab-data.jpg"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6gtdit | Why is it considered a fashion faux pas to wear white after Labor Day? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"disvzld",
"diteg0b",
"disx9im"
],
"text": [
"There are a lot of little anecdotes about this and how it applies to different social classes and whatever, but they all boil down to this: White is a summer color, and Labor Day is basically considered the end of summer. So because white is a comfy color to wear at resorts and boardwalks where it's hot, it's very associated with summer. And like all things fashion, wearing it at the wrong time is considered tacky, so the general fashion rule is to cut white off at summer's end.",
"This, like other fashion rules, is entirely arbitrary. As/u/pusmottob, such arbitrary rules served to separate those who were higher on the social class structure from those who were lower than them. Other ways included language and table manners. Such rules have been almost entirely abandoned in the 21st century, though.",
"This is a historic question. After the civil war tons of people where making money and becoming rich in the Unites States. The \"Old\" money didn't like this, and wanted to distinguish themselves from the \"New\" money. To do this they invented rules some based on fashion, this was one of them. A bunch of snobby old rich people hundreds of years ago made this rule to show separate from the newly wealthy."
],
"score": [
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6gtw3p | Why is Russia a world superpower despite having less citizens and money than countries like the US? | They have half the citizens of the US and are 12th in the world by gdp yet they are a world superpower? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dit08wy"
],
"text": [
"They have a large stockpile of [nuclear weapons]( URL_0 ) and a powerful military that is centrally situated between Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia. This makes them quite significant, despite their relatively low economic power. However, the term superpower is pretty ambiguous. My understanding is that superpower in the post-Cold War/post-soviet union environment really refers only to the United States. The Russians are certainly a global power, with the ability to project influence in many ways all over the globe, but usually they aren't considered a superpower, so far as I know."
],
"score": [
14
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6guddo | Just because PR votes for statehood doesn't make them a state right? Wouldn't Congress have to vote to approve such a move? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dit47zl"
],
"text": [
"Yes, statehood can only be granted if Congress votes for it. In fact, Congress doesn't even need the consent of the people in the territory to give them statehood (although that would be unlikely). Bottom line, it's 100% the US Congress's decision. The vote is just an expression of interest."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6guisl | Why is it that for many people their behavior completely changes when they are in a car or on the internet? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ditgt64",
"dit68vb",
"dit6qih",
"dit6i60",
"ditcnve"
],
"text": [
"It's about anonymity and vulnerability. On the internet, you're anonymous and well outside the reach of the person you're talking to, so when people disagree, they tend to be a lot more confrontational and aggressive... because it's easy to be aggressive and confrontational when there's no chance of being punched in the face. In the real world if you're 5\" tall and weigh 90lbs soaking wet, you're probably not going to tell a 6\"5 250lb guy that he's full of shit, even if that's what you think. Online, who cares? What's he going to do? The flip side is it's also much easier to be abusive or aggressive (or honest) when the person you're communicating with is just words on a screen. The internet dehumanizes the person you're speaking to Basically,It's really easy to watch a bad youtube video and tell xXUsernameXx that they're a talentless piece of shit. It's a different thing to watch that same video and then walk up to Jenny, the 14 year old girl who makes Minecraft videos to take her mind off her parent's divorce...and look her in the eye and say \"You're a talentless piece of shit.\" As for cars? Well, the same applies. You're in a big, locked metal box that's basically half suit of armor, half escape pod. Lean on your horn, give the middle finger, because you're at your turning and will never see whoever's driving that car again.. and fuck that fucking stupid fucking Ford that cut you off in traffic, because it's a stupid fucking Ford...not Jenny's Mom who's had a really bad day and distracted because she doesn't know how she's going to make rent that week.",
"When you're talking to someone face-to-face, you can get a better sense of what people intended to say based on their tone of voice and also their reaction from their facial expressions. For example, it's easier to hear sarcasm than it is to read it. Likewise, people can silently express their apology through their face if they accidentally bump into you. When you're behind the wheel or online, you get neither of these feedback mechanisms. Some people just tend to assume the worst if they have been snubbed in the past. As more people on the road/internet have the same attitude, it just turns off any remaining people who have give the benefit of the doubt, continuing the cycle.",
"What comes out of you when you think you are safe from consequences is what is really inside of you. I don't think their behavior \"changes\" as much as it is unfiltered. If you are an angry driver but calm in normal life(like myself) then you probably have a lot of anger inside. If you squeeze an orange you will get orange juice because that's what it is made out of. What comes out of you when you are squeezed is what you are made out of.",
"I can't say for everyone with the car. But for me it's about responsibillity. When I'm driving, I'm the one that'sheld responsible for accidents against the 'softer' people in traffic, meaning pedestrians or people on a bicycle. Sometimes they can act completely idiotic and irrational giving very little regard to their surroundings even though they will get hurt the most. I act out with getting angry because if I hit them, I not only will get the legal backlash, unless it can be absolutely proven that it was their fault, I know myself well enough that it would most likely scar me emotionally. So my fears of getting these backlashes without it being my fault, and the fear of hurting someone is converted into anger as a coping mechanism. On the internet it has to do with anonymity. Sometimes the personality people have online is more true to their inner self, or maybe just a more uncensored version of their feelings in the moment. In the normal world you have to uphold a certain standard to be accepted by your equals, however you are for the most part anonymous online, so there is hardly any of that in your consideration. On a bad day I can lash out on the internet that I in the normal world would have to think about a second time before reacting to it. The fact that you are talking to a emotionless machine doesn't help either, cause you never get no visual feedback of a face getting sad because of your action, so you have never gotten a negative sensation from insulting someone on the internet as you have in real life Edit: TL;DR: In traffic I think it's the responsibillity and fears of potentielly hurting someone. Online the anonymity makes you vicious",
"It's the Gyges Ring principle. URL_0 \" considers whether an intelligent person would be moral if he did not have to fear being caught and punished for doing injustices.\" So when you're in the car/internet your subconscious knows that people can't \"see\" you or truly define who you are, therefore giving you a false confidence that you can behave a certain way without consequence."
],
"score": [
48,
8,
4,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6gvmng | Why does it seem like a disproportionate amount of elderly drivers drive beige or silver cars? Why beige or silver? | This is a strange phenomenon in South Florida. I'm not sure if it's like that elsewhere. The cars tend to be Buicks or, ironically, Oldsmobiles. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dits4ia",
"ditfpd0"
],
"text": [
"Went car shopping with Gramps recently, here's how it went down. Black: attracts sunlight, too hot, he'll suffocate in there Red, or literally any other color: too flashy, cop magnet Settled on a beige camry. Just wants to get from A to B without looking like he gives a shit, I think",
"Silver cards don't display dirt/dust nearly as bad as other colored cars. Due to this a lot of people prefer them because they are easier to care for in terms of appearance. Also most of the cheaper cars in at dealerships (less features that are closer to the base model) are normally a silver/white color so it could be that they are buying those."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6gz4hd | Maslow (1943) hierarchy of needs, specifically aesthetic needs? | Apologies if the flair is wrong. I'm doing a leadership course and the above came up. All the other points made sense. Any explanation online is just waffle. Thanks | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diu7w1f"
],
"text": [
"What about them? People get pleasure from apprehending beautiful things. (We know now it's because the brain releases endorphins.) But under Maslow's theory this isn't something you can spend the energy to appreciate when you're starving or anxious about whether you'll have a place to sleep."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6gzwyk | How is Hansen VS Predator allowed? | Hi. I'm not from USA. I suddenly came across the Hansen vs Predator series on youtube and found it quite amusing and interesting to watch. So after a few episodes, I started to wonder about the legal terms of it. So, explain like I'm five years old lawyer: Legally, after serving time, a citizen, should have paid his due. right? Having a tv show to show your face and tie your face and name to a certain crime forever (mainly in internet world nowadays) does not brake the law? I mean, those guys would face public stigma for the rest of their lives, being unable to rebuild their lives somewhere and have a second chance? The internet never forgets and this person would not be able to find jobs and rebuild his life. ps.: Sorry for any misspelling ps.2: I'm not advocating in favor of the criminals. Just trying to understand the ideia of justice as a tool for punishing the crime, but also a hehabilitation facility to re-insert one in society as a fixed person. I know this is quite utopic. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diucqoq",
"diuejra",
"diudzml",
"diudhc6",
"diue6v6"
],
"text": [
"Only mildly related, but when I saw that title, I imagined a boy band fighting an alien hunter in the jungle, and assumed it was a parody series. As for Chris Hansen and his hard-on (pun intended) for catching child molesters, I'm not 100% sure how legal it is. I imagine that these people are foolishly giving their consent to show their faces, or else the production crew is using laws that allow you to record and air footage inside a private residence. I would like to see one of these people sue Dateline or Hansen for using their likeness without permission, just to see where the precedents lie.",
"There is no equivalent of the \"right to be forgotten\" within the US like there is in Europe, on the grounds that it's a violation of free speech and the free press.",
"> Legally, after serving time, a citizen, should have paid his due. right? Paid his due to the government. That doesn't cover how society is going to treat you. > Having a tv show to show your face and tie your face and name to a certain crime forever (mainly in internet world nowadays) does not brake the law? Because there is no law against it. Such a law would be impossible. You can't force people to forgive and forget or just ignore a person's crimes. > I mean, those guys would face public stigma for the rest of their lives, being unable to rebuild their lives somewhere and have a second chance? Some people consider that fine. Even people that don't, what's the alternative? You can't criminalize \"public stigma.\" > Just trying to understand the ideia of justice as a tool for punishing the crime, but also a hehabilitation facility to re-insert one in society as a fixed person. I know this is quite utopic. TV shows, youtube series, and public reactions aren't part of the justice system.",
"> Legally, after serving time, a citizen, should have paid his due. right? Such criminal convictions are a part of public record forever. After serving your time the state is done with your crime, but private citizens are free to hold a grudge without time limit. > Having a tv show to show your face and tie your face and name to a certain crime forever (mainly in internet world nowadays) does not brake the law? Nope. For example suppose you are convicted of murder and the news reports on your crime and punishment. That news report is available for all time and there is no justification for trying to censor it. What happened happened and you can't make people forget. > I mean, those guys would face public stigma for the rest of their lives, being unable to rebuild their lives somewhere and have a second chance? Who knew fucking kids had such lasting consequences?",
"I assume you are trying to get to the level where this sort of thing is libel or slander, which it isn't. So long as the story is presented as is, that is to say in a true and correct form, there really are no limits to how long it can be repeated. Since no material misrepresentation is occurring (you see the man there being confronted about what was said online and often making excuses), it's not libel or slander because it happened. Limits on speech are very limited. This reporting is a form of speech that is protected and the barrier to stop it's publication is going to be pretty high, as it should be."
],
"score": [
20,
10,
7,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6h1fw6 | Why are bidets and other water integrated toilet seats common in Europe and other countries but almost non-existent in the US? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diuq21y",
"diuwd5i"
],
"text": [
"I come from a country in Europe where bidets are normal. The main use is to ~~earth~~ wash your feet and to place the dirty clothes while you shower. Babies use them as washbasin.",
"Adam ruins everything did a piece on it in his flushable wipes video ( URL_0 ) Pretty much they became synonymous with hookers and brothels. because of this people didn't want them in their homes. Imagine inviting a guest over and they think you're a hooker because of a piece or porcelain in your bathroom."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgHVO-RZ8c4"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6h26em | Why are dinosaurs marketed so much toward kids instead of other animals? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diuwhql"
],
"text": [
"Dinosaurs only exist in the toy aisle of the store. For contrast, ponies are a real thing. You can actually buy your kid a pony, and teach it all about how much a pony eats and the work involved in picking up after a pony. There is a mix of upside and downside with a pony. Where I grew up, many kids had a \"pet\" cow as part of a 4H project. They took wonderful care of their cow, and showed them off in competitions. Then their took their cow down to the slaughterhouse and saw it converted into sides of beef they could sell or bring home and eat. That last step is a bittersweet experience for most young ranch children. It's an essential aspect of why cows are so numerous in the area, but it's very different that their relationship with the family dog. With dinos you never have to risk breaking the fantasy."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6h27yq | What is the smallest known uncontacted ethnic group? | NOTE: When I mean uncontacted, I mean "Very little touch with modern society", NOT "Undiscovered" | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diuwpe1",
"diuz95n",
"diuyoqc"
],
"text": [
"Several candidates. There is island inhabitants of Niihau in Hawaii, Population 100 or something. There is various Amazonian tribes, usually only a village worth or so. Small, you mean population?",
"There are many possible, Sentinelese would be one of the more famous groups. There is estimated to be 30-100 members but actual numbers are unknown - they've been isolated for many years on their island. That is going to be a common theme with uncontacted groups, most of the time their numbers are unknown - there are several tribes in Brazil/Peru/Ecuador that are believe to also be in the 30-100 member range. The smallest group would be 'Man of the Hole' - he is believed to be the only member left of his tribe. So the next question is how do you define an ethnic group? Many of the Brazilian tribes may share some ethnic background, so it is difficult to say if the 'Man of the Hole' would be the smallest 'Ethnic Group' even though he is likely the last of his tribal village.",
"The people of [North Sentinel Island]( URL_0 ) have to be on the list here, although there has definitely been contact in the past."
],
"score": [
13,
8,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sentinel_Island"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6h2n30 | Why is it when I'm somewhere like the mall or other public place you sometimes see people wearing surgical mask? | Also, is it just coincidental they all seem to be of Asian decent. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"div1ef8",
"div0rby",
"div83jn"
],
"text": [
"I have heard that it is considered respectful to wear a surgical mask in public when you are sick to limit spreading your illness in very dense cities.",
"This is predominantly an Asian culture phenomenon where people will wear the masks to protect themselves against flu and cold outbreaks, as well as air pollutants. The practice dates back to the early 20th century, when a number of events - huge influenza outbreaks prior to 1919; the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923 and the ensuing inferno that shot massive amounts of ash into the air; another global flu epidemic in 1934; etc - made use of face masks fairly common in Asia. People assumed the masks offered protection against disease and pollution (air quality gradually became horrendous during the post-WWII industrialization of Japan and China), so their use became widespread and continues to this day. There's a good read on the subject here: URL_0 Edit: interesting point here: > The reality is that the woven-cloth surgical masks provide minimal protection from environmental viruses anyway. (Surgeons use them to protect patients from their mouth-borne germs, not the other way around.) The benefits to protecting oneself from other air pollutants is not mentioned, but unless the mask has an air seal around the face and prevents unfiltered air from getting to your orifices, its actual benefits may be limited. That is, other than protecting *others* from *you*.",
"Reading all of this makes sense but since I live in a rather clean city (it's pretty small) I'm just going to look at them and think to myself how thoughtful, they don't want to get others sick, Every time. Nothing wrong with being positive right? Lol"
],
"score": [
21,
12,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://qz.com/299003/a-quick-history-of-why-asians-wear-surgical-masks-in-public/"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6h2q8l | Why are directors considered the "masterminds" behind movies? Don't the writers and producers contribute more to the movie's plot and aesthetics? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"div1v75",
"divgllk",
"div2f9a",
"div1lth",
"divrahw"
],
"text": [
"Writers contribute dialogue, narrative, theme, etc. Producers contribute money, mostly. Directors, on the other hand, take the input of writers and other creatives working on the film, as well as the talent of the actors themselves, and try to shape that into an artistic expression. They are the ones who can have a broad vision for how a scene might play out and not just *what* is said and done, but *how*. So while writers, producers, and others have their roles to play in the production, the director is the one person who can (or ought to) bring everything together into one package.",
"The \"director as mastermind\" idea is called the [Auteur Theory]( URL_0 ). It was created by French film critics in the 1940s and championed by American critics. Prior to this, film directors were viewed as craftsmen, kind of like episodic TV directors are now. The theory reached its apex in the 1950s when French critic Francois Truffaut exalted director Alfred Hitchcock as an auteur, a singular voice behind the creation of his films. If you're really interested, here's [a video of their lengthy interview]( URL_2 ) that led to the famous book \"Hitchcock/Truffaut\" In the 1960s, some American critics like Pauline Kael tried to dismiss the Auteur Theory, but it was too late. Even though most people don't know its name, they think of the director as the author of the film. Before the Auteur Theory, the producer was all-powerful. More in the role of impresario, they would conceive, cast, shape and control the entire production. Take a look at some of [Daryl F. Zanuck's Memos]( URL_1 ) for an example. The Auteur Theory took root firmly. Directors like Spielberg, Zemeckis, Lucas and Coppola followed in Hitchcock's footsteps. Thanks to the collapse of the studio system, producers become glorified financiers and salesmen. Very few creative producers in the vein of Zanuck remain. The ones who come to mind are Jerry Bruckheimer, Kathy Kennedy at Lucasfilm and Kevin Feige at Marvel. The writer has never been powerful, ever since the forming of the original writers union, the Screen Writers Guild. Soon after, the Guild made a deal with the studios for a health plan and pension fund. In exchange, they agreed to give up all copyright claims to their written work, and all their power. Source: I'm a Hollywood pro. **TL;DR: French film critics convinced the world in 1940s that directors were masterminds and it stuck.**",
"Producers made broad decisions and oversee the whole project: they find the cash for it, they hire actors, writers, directors and so on, and they have some say in the kind of movie they want. Screenwriters are, of course, very important: you need a good script. But no matter how brilliant the script is, a poor director can still turn the movie into a disaster. Think about what the director does. He defines the whole look of the movie. He tells the actors where to go and how to deliver their lines. He dictates how each scene is to be lit. He works out in detail what shots he needs, how to shoot them, what the camera operator should do, and so on. He basically decides what each and every frame is going to look like. For example, watch some Michael Bay movies. They're full of movement: often the camera is moving, tracking and panning, while actors turn and spin. That's his direction, and it's what makes his movies adrenalin-filled blockbusters. Without that, they would just be run-of-the-mill action movies with frankly awful dialogue.",
"Producers control the film financially. Directors control the film creatively. Writers, actors, set designers, DPs etc are all specialists who exercise their particular art under the overall artistic supervision of the director. These specialists though don't necessarily have any input on the film outside their narrow field of expertise.",
"The writer may write: \"Rico faced the gunslinger, his face tense, his hand hovering above the mother of pearl grips of his father's pistol.\" However, it is the director that decides whether the camera is facing Rico directly, tight in on his face, or whether it shows his profile. What follows? a broad shot of the street showing the two cowboys? A cut to the clock ticking its way to noon, as the music builds? A shot of Rico over the shoulder of the gunslinger who slowly starts walking forward. What tells the story best? Should the camera focuses on Rico's boots as he too starts walking forwards? Or should there be a tight shot of Rico's hand hovering above his holster, which then pans out to Rico walking forward? Does cutting away to show Consuela, Rico's love interest, being held by her father add to the story or take away from it? Should the face of the mysterious gunslinger be revealed or remain in shadow? Should they break for lunch, or continue to shoot the scene? Aside from scheduling and deciding on camera angles, lighting, and music, the director is in charge of the teams responsible for finding locations, actors, getting sets built, managing camera, lighting, and sound equipment, animals, stunt workers, and who knows what else. The director of a film is like the captain of a ship. He has a crew to do the work, but the decisions are ultimately his. How to bring the script to film, these are the decisions of the director. This is why the director is considered the mastermind behind the movie."
],
"score": [
56,
21,
12,
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auteur",
"http://a.co/81mqDLJ",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq51gq4s5r4&list=PLrwUnL23zrPvip0v2HuFysocXdw8Ut_k8"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6h4n9r | Why does it seem like doctors stopped making house calls? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"divjddp",
"divi58m",
"divtwv5"
],
"text": [
"Doctors definitely still make house calls, especially in the UK. But the funding to pay doctors only allows one house visit in a daily clinic. They reserve this slot for the most needy of this visit. Cost wise, a house visit is worth 30-40 minutes of a doctor's time. Driving, parking, consulting. That could be time spent towards 3-4 other patients whereas this only contributes to a single patient. It's costly stuff. Typically it's given to patients with poor mobility but still are crucial to see in person. Of course, poorly mobile patients are typically important to see nonetheless. Patients with recent hip replacement and those requiring wheelchairs, those with immunodeficiency, alcoholism and agoraphobia come to mind. Slightly off-topic, it is valuable to see a patient in their own homes as one can judge their in-house sanitation and how they manage daily activities for one's self. - me, an overthinking medical student",
"There are plenty of doctors that still make house calls if necessary. In general, doctors prefer you to come to the hospital because they use all sorts of high tech equipment that is tricky or unreasonable to transport, recalibrate, set up in someone's home, etc. The hospital is also built for sanitation.",
"Combination of reasons: * Doctor offices have become like factory lines where they cram as many patients into a day as possible. Eliminating the travel time back a forth to \"stay-at home patients\" maximizes the doctor's time, increases the number of patients the doctor can see in a day and increases profits. * Providing the patient is mobile, having the patient come to the office enables a greater use of the technology. My wife use to work for a doctor group that had its own lab and x-ray facilities. One doctor group I was sent to had it's own MRI unit. * Economy of scale, doctors who form a group get to share a staff that process the insurance, scheduling and other functions and the cost of equipment. * And there is some logic in the fact that a patient able to come to the office is better able to recover since maintaining some degree of normalcy in getting out of bed, going outdoors and traveling keeps the patient feeling functional. That is why hospitals provide bed ridden patients with remote controls to raise the bed, raise and lower the shades, have see through shades, etc. in order to give the patient some degree of control over their lives. Have you ever suddenly felt better when you got to the doctor's office? I have."
],
"score": [
15,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6h5e26 | Why was the OJ double murder trial such a big deal? | I just got done watching the Made in America documentaries and they were really eye opening. I was about 5 when the trial happened so I associated OJ with the trial. After watching Made in America, the trial has successfully moved on from from 'a big deal because all the adults said so' in my mind to 'maybe I understand why this is such a big deal' but I'm a sheltered suburban white kid so obviously there is a lot that doesn't make sense. * Why did this (lets be honest fairly cut and dry murder trial) become the "trial of the century"? Obviously racial tension in LA reached a flash point with Rodney King and this trial was in the right place but I wonder how much of that is organic and how much was manufactured to help the defense's case. * Would there have been riots in LA had OJ not been aquitted? Was the racial divide as strong as it seems? * Why was OJ so famous and admired in the first place? I can't think of any other football player ever to achieve his level of fame. Is there a modern day equivalent (in terms of pre-murder OJ)? * Would it be possible for anything like it to happen again or is it a right place right time right racial tensions kind of thing? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"divs4q3",
"divo329",
"divo679"
],
"text": [
"* The racial tensions were pre-existing, and major. The riots were a huge deal at the time, as was the Rodney King trial. And in the months after the murder and before the trial, on an interpersonal basis, if you talked to people, you'd see that virtually all white people though OJ was guilty, while virtually all black people thought OJ was innocent and had been framed. I personally did not know a single person who deviated from that sharp divide. People did exist who didn't follow that schism, but it wasn't common. There was a lot of hostility towards Nicole and she was disparaged, with the disparagement both an explanation for why someone killed her (like maybe she was using drugs and a drug dealer killed her over a deal gone wrong) and to stifle any sympathy for her. there were fights about the racism involved in the situation from the first, like with the Time and Newsweek covers, for example. Johnny Cochran did exploit this issue of race--he basically won by successfully making the trial *about* racism, so if you believed racism existed, then you believed OJ was framed, and by suppressing mention of or understanding of domestic violence. * I personally think there might have been some scattered incidents in LA had OJ not been acquitted, but not riots on the order of the '92 LA riots. But that's just an opinion. There very well might have been riots. One thing you have to understand is that the OJ trial was on TV all day, every day, morning till late at night. The trial was broadcast live, and while the trial wasn't going on, there was constant news and analysis of the trial. Everyone talked about the trial every day. It was constantly in our minds. The reason I don't think that there would have been riots on the order of the LA Riots was that the anger about Rodney King was far greater, as he had been subjected to treatment from the police that a large percentage of African-Americans had experienced and to say that that was just fine and not police brutality, was a huge miscarriage of justice as well as a threat for the future that the police would continue to treat African-Americans that same way. While the OJ trial was very central to everyone's discussions and there was a lot of anger about it, I don't think people would have taken it as personally. * OJ was the most famous sports star of his day. Everybody who followed sports at all knew him, and he'd starred in some very popular movies and he starred in popular commercials and he was prominent on football shows every week during the season. Think of Michael Jordan, or LeBron James, or Peyton Manning, or Tom Brady. A superstar. * Sure, the same thing could happen at any time. Racial and political hostilities are more acute now than ever. Look at what is happening with BLM. Though in that case, plenty of white people support BLM and BLM's perspective, so the racial divide is not as dramatic. It's more of a political divide, a blue vs. red divide. Just wait until/if Trump is impeached. You'll see the same kind of divide, with Trump supporters doubling down on how awesome he is, while others are equally insistent about his guilt.",
"- While it seems cut and dry in retrospect, at the time DNA evidence was new (hell, jurassic park only came out in 1993) and largely unknown and OJ was a well liked public figure with an extremely wholesome image. For the jurors, who didn't get the benefit of exhaustive TV analysis but had to hear the case argued out in real time by skilled defense attorneys, it's not hard to imagine how they came out the way they did, even if it could easily (and should) have gone the other way. - I don't think that the defense did much to manufacture the outrage and public attention. It had much more to do with the advent of cable TV and specifically court TV. This was the first \"trial of the century\" to occur in the 24 hour news era, and it had all the bonuses of racial tensions, celebrity defendants, and ostentatious lawyers, plus fancy technology that made people interested. - I don't think anyone knows if there would have been riots had he been convicted. Given the police corruption angle it's possible, but there's no way to be sure. - OJ was basically the Dwayne Johnson of his era, or maybe a cross between him and Charles Barkley. He'd converted a popular sporting career into a burgeoning film career, and was also a well known commentator. - Anything is possible.",
"OJ was like the will smith of his time. imagine if will smith was a running back insead of a rapper, in terms of public image. Also, remember that the only reason he was acquitted was because the prosecution mishandled the evidence incredibly poorly the head detective literally said, on tape, that he 'loved to frame niggers.' they had to throw away almost all of the evidence because it was mishandled, i'm talking like taking evidence away from the scene of the crime without taking pictures of it and without gloves on levels of mishandling. like holy shit, how do you get a jury to turn in a guilty vote to that? it was a racially charged trial because of things like that, and its why it causes so many people to get up in arms about it even to this day. would there have been riots if he was found guilty? most likely. did he do it? hell yeah. oh hell yeah he did it."
],
"score": [
8,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6h5ga4 | Why do many people enjoy crab, lobsters, and shrimp as food, but find the idea of eating tarantulas and large insects disgusting? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"divoo09",
"divorpi"
],
"text": [
"My best guess would be because people are often surprised by insects, by finding them in unexpected places in their home. We don't see crustaceans in the wild, and when we see live ones, it's almost always in a controlled, expected environment (inside a tank at the grocery store) and the movements are much slower than the movement of insects. Also due to their size, it's a lot easier to get at just the meat and to discard all the \"icky parts.\" Insects are too small to do that effectively, so you have to eat the whole thing - icky parts and all. Additionally, crustaceans have a lot more meat. They're generally more muscular animals, because in order to get around they have to be strong enough to deal with water resistance and currents. This too plays into the prior point about making it easier to separate the muscle from everything else. Finally though, there are a lot of non-western cultures that do eat insects. And some people are working on bringing that mindset to western culture as well, although I can't think of the example right now.",
"Im guessing it has to do with how they are prepared in a culinary sense. Those sea creatures have exoskeletons protecting them, and when you remove that to cook the meat and cover them in butter and lemon (or roll them in sushi) it's easy to forget that they are bascially the cockroaches of the sea. Also, if you take a look at the context... maybe people regarded them as appetizing in the first place becasue you can't see them in the ocean scrounging around; if we witnessed a crazy shrimp crawling across your bathroom floor in the middle of the night we probably wouldn't think to eat shrimp."
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6h5gvx | Why do so many white, western liberals and progressives defend Islam? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"divom8a"
],
"text": [
"They tend to support freedom of religion. They tend to support civil rights for minorities. Seems strange to think of them as a minority but in the US and Western countries they are."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6h5ri8 | Why do protestors block streets and highways? Wouldn't this turn a lot of people away from their cause? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"divtube",
"divqrp3",
"divsaih"
],
"text": [
"Think about how injustices are handled. When an African American kid gets shot by police, the police get suspended with pay and a trial is set within the next few months or years. When gay marriage was being fought for, gays were told \"just wait until public opinion changes. Then we can change the law.\" They're essentially blown off. But if you were black or gay, and you where suffering a clear injustice *right then*, you wouldn't want to wait six months to a few years. You'd want something done *now*. That's why blocking the street is so effective. It shuts down traffic, which means people can't get to their jobs, stores lose business, people can't drive to their favorite restaurant. Do you think the people who are inconvenienced by the protesters would accept being told \"yeah, it sucks you can't get to your kid's daycare in less than thirty minutes anymore. File a motion and wait fourteen months. Good luck!\" No, they want the street unblocked, and they want it unblocked *now*. So essentially it's a way to show the general public how absurd telling a victimized minority to \"wait\" for basic human rights actually is.",
"If they didn't block streets or highways, would you ever pay attention to them??? It gets them noticed.",
"I'm not a fan of protesters blocking roads but I am willing to see past my inconveniences and appreciate their causes. This country has a long history of protesting with positive results. The Selma March, the Million Man March, etc. The thing is people rarely understand or are even aware of issues that don't personally effect them. Protests that make you late for work at least raise awareness. Pettiness may stop you from caring about learning about the protest but some people will educate themselves. I've never protested a day in my life but I have respect for people who don't go silently into the wind."
],
"score": [
6,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6h7i26 | Why babies laugh at peekaboo so much | Edit: I just noticed I don't have a question mark in the title Edit 2: I forgot the "do" after the "why" Edit 3: Okay now that I think about it, I wrote the title like ELI5 was part of the sentence. "Explain like I'm five why babies laugh at peekaboo so much." | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diw2xvc",
"diw4mje",
"diw32es",
"diwlyz4",
"diwi38l"
],
"text": [
"Object Permanence, or the ability to recognize that an object still exists even if it changes form (like the same amount of water just switched containers) or that it becomes hidden. It is fascinating for them to see someone appear and disappear almost instantly.",
"as a father of an almost 2 year old. babies laugh at anything or everything. Object Permanence is one very valid theory but getting reaction from parents another. if babies notice we laughed at anything they do they tend to repeat it A LOT",
"Your title is fine as is. If you added the question mark, you would also need to add the word \"do\" after \"why\" to transition your sentence from a declarative to an interrogative.",
"In addition to the comments about \"object permanence\" and \"disappearing,\" it probably also has to do with the fact that the person doing the peekabooing is also smiling and having fun. Imagine acting like a loud scary zombie (not play-acting) every time you play, and you might get a different reaction.",
"Until a certain age, babies can't comprehend the fact that want they can't see still exists. The constant disappearing and reappearing becomes amusing as a result."
],
"score": [
57,
24,
13,
12,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6h8el5 | What is a Council in the UK? What is their responsibility over apartment complexes? | Following Grenfell Tower tragedy, Americans like myself are reading references to lots of unfamiliar things Brits may take for granted. Particularly, what is the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation? How does it make decisions and what is its authority and responsibilities? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diwfesw",
"diwb2fd"
],
"text": [
"> ELI5: What is a Council in the UK? This is somewhat impossible to answer as the word not does refer to a single, specifically or consistently defined thing. Much like how in the US if I ask how your local govt is structured the answer can vary a lot by state. You might say that you live in an incorporated town, which is in a county, in a state, in the federation. But someone else would chime in and say they don't live in a county, etc, etc. Basically at the top level you have uk national govt (Westminster), then Scotland, Wales and NI have their own national assemblies/parliaments (England doesn't), then after that the traditional subdivision in England was a county, each with a County Council. Under that you would get towns and cities with Town/City Councils, and rural areas would subdivide into parishes with Parish Councils. (Historically, and including the other home nations, you might also see Island Council, District Council, Regional Council, Community Council and many more.) As urban metropolitan areas grew and merged and sprawled across traditional parish and county borders this layering was deemed impractical/inefficient for many places. So for example Nottingham is traditionally (and still \"ceremonially\") in the county of Nottinghamshire, but rather than Nottingham City Council being subordinate to Nottinghamshire County Council, it operates as a \"unitary authority\" (basically meaning it wields the combined powers of what would have been separate county and local government). London being rather unique in size/population it likewise has a unique structure of local authority. Greater London used to have a Great London Council, these days it is an Authority, but it is still arguably a council (with a small c). Greater London is then subdivided into boroughs which each have a Borough Council. (Ignoring for now that two of the boroughs are cities, and one of those is a Corporation not a Council, and not actually a borough either, because that is all another kettle of fish and has been covered elsewhere). Kensington and Chelsea is a London Borough. (Except Victoria liked it so it's called _Royal Borough of..._ instead of a _London Borough of..._, but once again, this kind of arcane detail we can leave to CGPGrey videos) So essentially \"what is a council in the UK\" - an instance of local government, which may be at parish, community, town, city, borough, regional, district, island, or county level, and could be little more than a handful of old neighbourhood busybody types sitting around discussing the village flower arrangements, or a local authority with enormous budgets and far reaching powers for huge urban areas. It's even more complicated (!) because even if you are comparing a county council to a county council, or city to city, etc, you can't confidently assume the authority/responsibilities will be equivalent. Owing to the 'free market' / 'small government' beliefs of (especially) Thatcher (but also all subsequent govts really), much \"council housing\" has been sold off, either to individual private owners, or as a block to some kind of private sector housing association. In other cases the council may retain ownership but conduct management through an arms length separate (or at least 'separate') organisation, and this seems to be the situation with KCTMO. Either way the housing will often continue to be referred to as \"council housing\" (due to the associations of demographics, architecture, etc) even when it isnt anymore. tl;dr - at a UK-wide level this can't really be answered easily, since council can mean almost anything, and so-called council housing could be fully council-owned and managed, or not actually have had anything to do with the council for decades.",
"Council Housing in the UK is social housing provided by the government. In 2010 about 17% of UK citizens lived in council housing. Council housing is owned by various local authorities - the Kensington and Chelsea TMO is one such organization, they run about 10,000 properties in Kensington and Chelsea. They're essentially a not-for-profit that manages the housing with funding from the government."
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6hb2r3 | How does Justice differ from Vengeance? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dix1dns",
"diwxlv4"
],
"text": [
"Justice is about ensuring a stable society while vengeance is about validating someone's emotions. The distinction becomes apparent when you consider the endgame of either process. Justice is designed to *resolve* conflicts in a society while vengeance *perpetuates* them. So if I murder a member of your family, then you seek vengeance on me by killing me. At which point, my family seeks vengeance on *yours*... and so forth until one family or the other is dead. In contrast, a justice system is structured to avoid this. I murder a member of your family, I get sent to jail... and it ends there.",
"Justice is what is just, that is, what is morally right. If someone does wrong, that they face consequences appropriate for what they have done. Vengeance is revenge, making someone suffer for what they have made you suffer. Revenge may or may not be just. It typically disregards intent, focusing merely on the actions."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6hbob2 | Why was Princess Diana so popular and globally renowned? | I was born in Kuwait (parents were immigrants to Kuwait) and I remember her death being so high profile that it made the news in a big way there too. Was it only because she was heir apparent to Queen Elizabeth II? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dix31fj"
],
"text": [
"She was not heir to the throne. Her husband was heir to the throne. And then they got divorced so she would never become queen. She was popular for a few reasons. Chiefly, I'd say it was because she had a certain charisma to her that attracted people to her. She was beautiful, and she had a great fashion sense and winning smile. The British royal family was seen as rather dull when she came along. Then, the combination of her charisma, beauty, and energy with their glamorous history, wealth, and status, made for a very exciting figure. She enhanced this by being quite dramatic in the things she said and her activities. In person she was very kind to some of the downtrodden, like people with AIDS, and she showed a willingness to hug people and connect in an emotional way, so people felt they could relate to her and that she was almost a friend. She also courted the press and they obliged by writing about her a lot. Nowadays, it's normal for popular magazines to focus on fashion at gala events. Back when she first came into the public eye, it was less common, but she made it exciting to publish photos of her in daring and fashionable clothing, helping to elevate the whole industry."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6hc0aw | how do we "feel" interpersonal tension "in the air" | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dix8vr8"
],
"text": [
"Reading the social situation became essential for survival a very long time ago in our evolution. Consider our close cousins, the gorilla. An adult male silverback gorilla [is a little terrifying]( URL_0 ), and they are very picky about dominance and aggression. Looking a gorilla in the eye is a challenge, and they will *kill* over it. Being able to read the alpha male troop leader's mood can literally be the difference between life and death if you happen to be another male in the group and make the mistake of looking at him when he's in a bad mood. His survival, and more importantly the survival of his offspring, depends on his continued leadership of the troop. Back to humans: we survive by getting along and helping each other as a group, a lot like gorillas. But we don't always get along, there are personality clashes and different ways of approaching our survival, and those are just as important. If the group leader is doing something that could get us killed, we need to challenge that. Paying attention to the social dynamic - who is upset and why and what they'll do about it - was critical to survival just a few tens of thousands of years ago. Even today, the social dynamic is important, since it can make the difference between getting a good job or getting fired from a job, or getting disowned from support networks like your family. Our brains have sections that are finely tuned to noticing stuff like that. So we're *really* good at noticing facial expressions, tone, word choice, body posture, etc. that signals tension."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK67kaMWN-8"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6hc86u | Why Amtrak stations go to small cities. | I live in Louisville, Kentucky. My closest train station is near Cincinnati, Maysville. Kentucky. I lived in Bloomington, Illinois which has an Amtrak station. Louisville has a much bigger population than Bloomington, yet no train station. Why? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dix71wv",
"dix79n5"
],
"text": [
"It mainly has to do with routing. A lot of rails are going to and from Chicago. Bloomington happens to be on the route already, so it was inexpensive to add a station. The demand does not need to be too high to justify the stop. Meanwhile Louisville isn't along any route. The tracks exist, but there are not any Amtrak trains going into and out of Louisville. The demand would have to be very high to get a whole new route added. If there was the demand, I'm sure they could run a chicago - orlando line, and that would run through kentucky, and stop at Louisville or Lexignton, but I'm guessing demand isn't that high, so they just route those passengers through Washington DC.",
"Louisville had a station from the late 1800s until sometime in the mid 1970s. The station was beautiful, but it suffered a fire and then the Ohio flood of 1937 also damaged the structure. Repairs were made but it no doubt exponentially increased annual maintenance. The increased cost, paired with a dying market as the United States fell in love with the automobile, led to the ultimate end of the Amtrak station. The station is still used as offices today and is open to the public."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6hcy7a | calling cards in Victorian/Edwardian times | I am reading Mrs Beetons book of household management (1861) and I read Emily Posts etiquette (1922). These both reference calling cards or some cards that people would leave when going to visit someone or want to see someone or agree to attend something. Can someone explain this to me? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dixdupl"
],
"text": [
"Remember, the original definition of a \"caller\" was a visitor at your home. Back then, there were no answering machines or voice mail at the time. If you went to visit someone and they were not home, you would leave a calling card. The card let the person you were trying to visit know that you came by and the purpose of your visit. Calling cards were also commonly used as invitation for parties as well."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6heb5y | Why does the Statute of Limitations apply to horrific crimes like rape, murder etc. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dixm8v5",
"dixnny2",
"dixm3wx",
"dixv57a"
],
"text": [
"There is no statute of limitations for murder (in the USA). There is a statute of limitations on rape in some states (depending on the state, anywhere between 3 and 30 years, though in others there is no statute of limitations, and in again others, there is no statute if the rape was particularly heinous like the rape of a child) because while it is a horrific crime, it is also a crime that (like most other crimes) becomes harder to prove and defend against the longer it has been. That means that even if you are innocent, the long time can mean you can no longer prove your innocence / refute arguments made by the prosecution. Some states feel that would have too much chance of innocent people being convicted, so there is a statute of limitations.",
"Why do we use jail as the result of crime? What does it do that makes it a good response on our part? When someone has committed a crime putting them in prison does the following: 1. It punishes them for what they did - making it less likely they will do it again. 2. It acts as a warning to others that they shouldn't do the thing or they will be put in jail. 3. It takes a dangerous person and takes them off the streets for a length of time so they can't reoffend. 4. It vindicates the victim and their family and hopefully makes them feel a bit better. 5. It provides society a chance to rehabilitate the offender so they don't reoffend when they get out. When you start to talk about historic crimes, things that happened 10, 20, 30 years ago you start wondering just how many of these reasons continue to exist. The offender, if they have not continued to offend, is obviously not in need of rehabilitation. Maybe what happened was just a one off thing, maybe they were overcome with guilt about it and would never do it again. Either way if its been 20 years and they have not reoffended prison isn't going to do a better job of teaching them to follow the laws. The victim and their family have likely moved on from the offence. There might be some solice in seeing the offender punished, but surely that is greatly reduced from what it would have been had they been convicted the week after the offence. There was obviously no need to remove a dangerous person from the streets as they didn't go on to reoffend. Deterance, again, is reduced but not eliminated. While others might see that justice was eventually done it isn't going to hit people as hard as if cops were picking up offenders the day after crimes were committed. There is obviously no need to punish the person as they are not reoffending anyways. On top of that, as other's have pointed out, there are evidentiary problem with proving historic crimes as both prosecution and defense evidence is going to be lost with time and the odds of a wrongful conviction increase.",
"Where did you get that idea? Murder has no statue of limitations. It might vary state to state. Rape may have one. Laws have been changed to allow minors to get justice. But murder has no statue of limitations.",
"If you're asking why there are statutes of limitations at *all*, the short answer is that permitting criminal charges/civil claims to be brought too long after the events at issue isn't fair to the defendant, for a variety of reasons, including: * Evidence goes \"stale\". Witnesses move around and die. Memories fade. Physical evidence is lost or deteriorates. It's really problematic to bring criminal charges or civil claims against a defendant so long after the alleged crime/tort that all of the evidence he might have used to prove his case is no longer available. * Related to the first, in the absence of a statute of limitations, the prosecutor or civil plaintiff can secure all of the evidence that makes the defendant look guilty and then wait a decade or three to bring charges, i.e., until after all the evidence that makes the defendant look innocent has disappeared. Surprise! * It encourages prosecutors and civil plaintiffs to take their priorities seriously. If a particular problem isn't important enough to the prosecutor/plaintiff do something about sooner rather than later, just how important can it be? Similarly, if something was a big enough deal to complain about *now*, why wasn't it a big enough deal to complain about two decades ago, back when it's supposed to have happened? * It permits people to go on with their lives without worrying about what someone else thinks they may have done decades ago. At some point, most things become water under the bridge, and it's just time to move on. If you're asking why statutes of limitations apply to *specific crimes*, well. . . they don't always. Many US jurisdictions have no statute of limitations for murder. Some don't have one for rape either, or at least the limitation is based on something other than when the crime was committed, e.g., a certain period *after a DNA match is made* rather than after the alleged rape itself. Why these exceptions? Significantly because many of the justifications for having statutes of limitations in general don't seem to apply to murder and rape. They're arguably *never* just \"water under the bridge,\" and there can be good and compelling reasons (e.g., lack of evidence, cold cases, etc.) for not bringing charges right away. Something else though: most jurisdictions recognize situations that \"toll\" (pause, basically) the statute of limitations. In the criminal context, statutes of limitation generally only begin to run once the authorities have identified a suspect. Until they do, or if they identify a suspect that is outside their jurisdiction (i.e., the suspect is a \"fugitive from justice\"), then the statute usually only starts to run once a suspect is identified or returns to the jurisdiction. On the civil side, the statute of limitations only begins to run once the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known about the defendant's alleged misconduct. So if A does something bad to B, but B only finds out about it four years later, then B will have however many years *from finding out about it* to bring suit unless it's the kind of thing that B really should have known about if he'd been paying attention."
],
"score": [
16,
11,
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6hekmn | Why are so many State capitals in the US not the biggest city? | I know the biggest city is not automatically designated a capital, but what made other cities develop and grow more than the cities chosen as capitals? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dixose7",
"diy4t52",
"dixoke4",
"diy3y5t",
"diy0yfk"
],
"text": [
"Most State capitols were chosen to be roughly centrally located so as to best allow for governance and communication in eras when travel was not easy. So the town/city closest the middle was chosen with many starting a city when none was there to begin with. Big cities grow due to being transportation and trade hubs. So seaports, river ports, train hubs, major crossroads and the like are what prompt their growth.",
"Sometimes they *were* the biggest city at the time, but other cities became more popular over the years. Chicago is the largest city in Illinois by a large margin, but when Springfield was designated the state capitol Chicago was a fledgling town.",
"Many state capitals were deliberately chosen not to be the biggest city because large cities already exert a disproportional influence over the state's politics. And sometimes it's because the capitals were chosen before a particular city got very large.",
"Biggest cities become the biggest cities because, for whatever reason, that's where people voluntarily go to build, buy, whatever. A state capital is designated. It may not really have much else going for it other than regional government.",
"Many state capitals were chosen when the states were founded, and were chosen for where the first real settlement was, or in a geographically central area. For instance, why Sacramento, not LA is the capital of CA, or Albany, not NYC."
],
"score": [
9,
6,
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6hf0kb | How come some native tribes all around the world know exactly what weird herb will cure a specific disease? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dixrbjl"
],
"text": [
"Years of experience gained through trial and error passed down the generations, much the same as any other kind of knowledge."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6hfhrw | With television, and more recently the Internet, are dialects being reduced? | It seems a people that share a common language would gradually learn a single dialect as that dialect was seen as the authoritative one and was made widely and easily available. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diy1zq3",
"dixwf11"
],
"text": [
"Possibly. And while /u/Bythnia is correct to say that there are many, many dialects still being spoken, there are still fewer dialects than there used to be, and the differences between those that survive are less than they used to be. Mass communication certainly does have the effect of gradually ironing out differences in dialects. Back in Chaucer's day, the 14th century, dialects in different parts of England were mutually almost unintelligible. Writing about 150 years after that, William Caxton told the story of some merchants from the north of England forced to wait near London for a favourable wind to get them to the Netherlands. They go to a tavern, where one of them orders \"eggs\", to which the landlady replied that she didn't speak \"French\". In the southern dialect, the word was \"eyren\". Caxton, of course, was famous for his printing press, and it was the spread of printing that started the process of standardizing the language: books could be cheaply mass-produced, and were written in a way that could hopefully be understood by most English-speakers. A mass-produced book could be sent to all parts of the country so everyone was getting the same texts, and so the Middle English of Chaucer gradually gave way to the Early Modern English of Shakespeare, shedding dialectical differences in the process. That was an early form of mass communication: modern forms are continuing the process. Many dialects have died out completely. When people say they speak \"American English without an accent\", what they mean is that they speak a dialect called General American, derived from a number of dialects originally spoken in the Midwest and used by newscasters in the early days of radio and TV (this happened because Midwesterners migrated to California to escape the Midwestern Dust Bowl of the 1930s). Another factor today is increased mobility: whereas our great-grandparents likely stayed in the towns they grew up in, these days we move around a lot more. This also has the effect of evening out the dialects. But that's not to say dialects are going to disappear entirely. New dialects emerge all the time, but instead of staying in one geographical area, they spread very quickly. It appears as if dialects are less about where you live, and more about what social class you belong to and how old you are. An example of this might be \"Valleyspeak\". This began as a dialect spoken mostly by young women in the San Fernando Valley in the 1980s, but through the power of various media -- Hollywood movies and a hit song by Frank Zappa -- it spread over much of the US and Canada, used primarily by young, wealthy women who valued materialism over intellect. This makes it a particular type of dialect called a \"sociolect\".",
"I'll add, going to college in the south, many journalism majors had to take speach/diction classes in an attempt to learn \"news english\" and diminish, though rarely get rid of their accent"
],
"score": [
10,
9
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6hij13 | Why are hardcover books discounted so much more heavily than their paperback counterparts? | Or is that not actually the case, and it's just some sort of anecdotal observation that I have made? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diyl0dl",
"diymc9n"
],
"text": [
"A hardback book is much larger and heavier than a paperback. So they take up more valuable shelf space, and to ship off to liquidate or store in a warehouse, shipping is more expensive. It is cheaper to just heavily discount and hopefully break even.",
"Because a hard cover books price is drastically inflated compared to paper back. It's usually the first run of a book so it's the maximum price they feel they can charge. Paper backs are cheaper to produce and generally come out much later, at a point where everyone willing to pay the full hard cover price already has bought it and the value of the book has dropped drastically already. Therefore the initial price of the paper back is always a lower initial price than the hard cover."
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6hirn0 | Why do people fully except euthanizing a pet like a dog who might not have the ability to fully understand or want it, but be totally against assisted suicide in people who know full and well what they're doing? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diyopcb",
"diypumx",
"diz0862"
],
"text": [
"For most of society animals, while being emotionally valuable and important to humans are lesser beings than humans. Ultimately it is not wrong for us to kill them because of that. We have decided that killing someone else's pet is illegal because of the loss of property, and we have decided that causing undue pain is illegal, but killing the animal itself is not.",
"In the US - religion mainly. I like to think our for profit hospitals enjoy squeezing every penny they can out of a life, especially in states where families inherit medical debt of the deceased (wtf is that even a thing?)",
"Because humans are supposed to control their fate, and animals aren't. And we just don't care about animals as much. Same reason we don't spay/neuter our children, despite all the same drawbacks and benefits applying."
],
"score": [
12,
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6hjtjg | The use of the term "Daddy" in erotica, pornography, the bedrooms of actual people we love and know, or our own bedrooms. Some of the same people who use it recoil when you point out that it's somewhere between overt and ersatz familial sex. Why would I ever want a lover to call me Daddy? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diyvbw4"
],
"text": [
"It often less about a biological father(incest) and more of a caring dominant. Mommy or daddy isn't necessarily a roleplay of family, regardless if ageplay is in effect. Think of it more as a variation of sir than a variation of \"you are my bio dad\". For some people though it is absolutely a \"you're my dad\" thing and this is generally more said by people who didn't have very good relationships with adults when they were younger. This is just what I know from my personal experiences as a submissive and the people I know. I absolutely do not speak for everyone with a daddy-kink. I hope I explained it okay though :)"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6hlj7r | Why are British tabloids so particularly "awful"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diz8xcr",
"dizaybg",
"dizjepy",
"dizfrmd",
"dizijfo",
"dizj1g3",
"dizy8tx",
"diz8g2y",
"dizn33c",
"dizkli3",
"dizi2op",
"dj01fk4"
],
"text": [
"It is not unique to the UK. Other countries have or had the same sort of thing. It just evolved differently in many places. In the UK what stands out is that you have so many tabloids competing with each other egging each other on and raising the bar about what is considered acceptable because everyone else is doing it. For comparison in Germany you have the \"Bild\" newspaper which is the countries biggest selling newspaper and largely a print repository of exaggerations, rumors, lies and unethical journalism in general. (One popular band called them out in lyrics of one of their songs as consisting only of \"fear, hate, tits and the weather\" and a novel about a woman's life being ruined by a Bild reporter and subsequently murdering him is required reading in many German classes in school.) In the US the height of this form of journalism was when the tabloids in New York started the Spanish American war based mostly on lies and manipulations by yellow journalism. One of the main culprits later Joseph Pulitzer ended up regretting his behavior so much that in his will he left his fortune to help make better journalist though education and though creating a prize in his name that rewards the exact opposite behavior of what made him rich. In the UK the tabloids just managed to hold on in numbers and continue to make the world a worse place through their lies and unethical behavior.",
"The UK tabloids are basically like the US gossip rags, but unlike the US, they have the veneer of a \"serious\" paper. Everyone knows the National Enquirer or Perez Hilton's gutter rags for what they are....they are trash, but at least they're pretty honest about it. Whereas the UK tabloids at least make the pretence of being \"proper\" news sources. So they are so awful because they're basically gutter gossip rubbish, masquerading as genuine, legitimate news.",
"British tabloids have a history of being 'awful' and unethical, best illustrated by the Rupert Murdoch's [News International phone hacking scandal]( URL_0 ). Celebrities, the Royals, deceased soldiers, bombing victims and 13 year old murder victim, [Milly Dowler]( URL_2 ) all had their phones hacked. Scotland Yard had discovered Dowler's voicemail had been accessed by journalists working for the News of the World and the newspaper's private investigator Glenn Mulcaire. The Guardian also reported that, during the police investigation into that newspaper's phone hacking activities, detectives discovered that journalists had deleted some messages—potential evidence—in Dowler's voicemail box because it was full, in order to free up space for new messages, to which they could listen. The deletions after Dowler was missing led family and friends to think that Milly was still alive Edit: The Sun newspaper is known as 'the scum of the earth' in the UK for good reason. News report from today [Sun journalist 'impersonated Grenfell Tower victim's friend at hospital']( URL_1 )",
"You should heard Quebec City radio stations, they would put those tabloid to a shame. We call them trash-radio (radio-poubelles). Some say they are partly responsible for a [shooting at a mosque]( URL_1 ) last year because all the [hatred they stirr.]( URL_0 ) How's that for awful ?",
"Lack of impartiality. They are all owned by parties that will spin any story to benefit themselves. The whole 'Don't vote Labour/Corbyn' from most of the red tops has been attributed to tax changes in the labour manifesto. Changes that would be detrimental to the tabloids owners. They use their platform to strengthen their own agenda and to influence the electorate.",
"Another point is that in the UK television news is supposed to be impartial. So you can't have anything like fox news over here; as TV news is held to a higher standard \"journalists\" that want to spout shit have to do it in the papers.",
"The Times is read by people who run the country. The Telegraph is read by those who used to run the country. The Guardian is read by those who want to run the country. The Daily Mail is read by those who should never be allowed to run the country. The Sun is read by those who don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.",
"Every country has their bottom feeding \"journalism\" rag. The UK has The Sun, The Daily Fail and others, the US has The Globe and The Enquirer that I'm aware of. They aren't any better or worse than others. We have the BBC for (relatively) unbiased news. Problem is sensationalism sells. Until we can teach everyone critical thinking, and it is far too late for the baby boomers that are the dominant consumer of this trash, then there will be a market for them.",
"As a child I grew up being told to read all of them and choose the one I agree with the most or felt was 'most true'. I always found this incredible screwed up! Surely they should all be TRUE at least? They're essentially paper representations of various demographics utilising clickbait style techniques to drag their 'readers' in. They're VERY opinion based and the government doesn't hold journalism to high scrutiny as they are notorious for gagging orders/public enquiries they can control the release of information over. The 'newspapers' pander to the parties they believe they will have the most success selling too. Morality and good journalism is few and far between, in the U.K. And the world. E.g. The Daily Mail is notorious for pandering to the audience that has no idea what life is like for MOST people so they get away with saying any of shit because their readers aren't commonly known to be deep thinking, research driven customers. They are often face value readers, much like The S*n. Both have countless lawsuits against them in response to false news stories. The Guardian, on the other hand, appeals to mostly Liberal viewed readers, the social justice readers. However, aside from a few reporters, they don't really push the boundaries very far anymore or cause much debate. Essentially they've become 'safe' if their market so don't do any journalism anymore. They do mix it up a bit for the sake of meeting various journalistic standards but any opinions they print for 'balance' are buried in sections you'd struggle to spot them in anyway. TL;DR: They pander to different political demographics using sensationalist tricks to guarantee clicks/sales; like if buzzfeed was printed.",
"Well, it's really no worse than any other country. It's just that they parade around as if they're a real newspaper. The UK actually has some of the best journalism in the world in the BBC and Reuters, and you often see UK newspapers linked on Reddit. The tabloids are just equivalent to gossip mags in any other country.",
"Because they are a reflection of what significant parts of the public want. And they keep those parts of the public misinformed so they want even more of it. This makes being awful profitable. And it suits the ruling classes and media corporations to have a misinformed public who can be manipulated to vote for and support policies that are only in the interest of the ruling classes and big corporations. Basically it comes down to greed and our historic class system and controlling the plebs.",
"Because, in the most part, they reflect the beliefs of their readers. People are happier when their \"news\" confirms what they already believe. My elderly aunt is, to all purposes, a fascist. She is in her eighties, and to her, everything went downhill after the war when \"we lost the Empire\". She appears to hate everything that isn't some idealised , middle class, 1950s dreamworld. Everything is the fault of : Foreigners, Liberals, Darkies ( a phrase she genuinely uses) , Communists, Gypsies, Lefties and immigrants. She reads the Daily Mail and everyday her opinions are validated."
],
"score": [
484,
315,
94,
45,
27,
24,
22,
19,
14,
5,
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal",
"https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/16/sun-journalist-grenfell-tower-victim-hospital",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Milly_Dowler#Voicemail_tampering_investigation"
],
[
"https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/after-mosque-attack-canadian-muslims-point-to-anti-immigrant-trash-radio/2017/01/31/d34f7db2-e7d2-11e6-903d-9b11ed7d8d2a_story.html?utm_term=.44d2f8d7074a",
"http://globalnews.ca/news/3215653/quebec-city-mosque-shooting-despite-strict-canadian-laws-illegal-guns-still-within-reach/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6hmez6 | Why does Americans call left wingers "liberals", when Europeans call right wingers "liberals" | You constantly see people on the left wing being called liberals (libtards, libcucks, whatever you like) in the USA. But in Europe, at least here in Denmark "liberal" is literally the name of right wing party. Is there any reason this word means the complete opposite depending on what side of the Atlantic you use it? Edit: Example: Someone will call me "Libtard cuck" when in reality I'm a "socialist cuck" and he's the "liberal cuck" ? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dizhwcq",
"dizgx9a",
"dizh52o",
"dizhmes",
"dizglth",
"dizjhwn",
"dizjuo2",
"dizj5x1",
"dizox69",
"dizhe03",
"dizogot",
"dizkowo"
],
"text": [
"When Americans are talking about liberals, they are referring to social policies usually, (what is commonly referred to as \"the left\") when Europeans use the term they are referring to economic policies (what is commonly referred to as the \"right\"). In the US long gone is the time when there was any real challenge to liberal (i.e. free market) policies, whereas in Europe where socialist and even communist or anarchist parties continue to exist, the term defines where some parties lie not socially but economically. Whereas people on the \"left\" are simply called leftist. Whether or not a real \"left\" and \"right\" still exists is debatable if you ask me, and these seem more like vestigial terms inherited from the early part of the 20th century when the divide was more evident, and when social liberalism was fundamentally anti-capitalist, unlike for example the CDU in Germany, which is relatively economically to the right, but socially still more to the left that even the most leftist of US Dems. tl;dr - One refers to social policy. The other to economic.",
"Are you referring to the Venstre, Danmarks Liberale Parti? The word left is right there in the name (Venstre). It's also described as a conservative-liberal party which means they represent liberal values with conservative policies i.e. the right-wing of the liberal movement. The liberal part in the party's name refers to market liberalism which is also known as free market capitalism. This is a right-wing ideal as opposed to socialism. Also bear in mind that American politics are so right-leaning that even our liberal party is right of center compared to the world's standards.",
"I'm going to post a quote that says it better than I can. \"Words have a habit of changing their meaning, especially if those who adopt them are not careful students of the literature or avid users of dictionaries. Thus it happened that, particularly in the United States, the word 'liberalism' has been gradually appropriated by champions of collectivism who reject liberalism in its classical sense. (See my essay on “Liberalism and the Choice of Freedoms,” in Erich Streissler, et al., eds., Roads to Freedom, pp. 117-146.) Old liberals may go on calling themselves by this designation – which is rightfully theirs – but they do so at the risk of being confused with American liberals. To avoid such confusion, they may resort either to explanatory footnotes or to adopting a new appellation for themselves, such as 'libertarians.' \" (Essays on Hayek, forework, Milton Friedman, p. XIV*) In short, many in America misunderstood the term, then misapplied it so much that it became the new truth in America.",
"In the UK, we wouldn't call Liberals right wing. Our Liberal Democrat party is centre-left. These days, the Liberals are probably more left than the supposedly socialist Labour party -- although that may be swinging back to a certain extent!",
"The US political spectrum is in general *much* further to the right than the European political spectrum. So what's on the left of the US political spectrum is much further to the right than basically any Danish political party",
"**Liberalism** is a political philosophy or worldview founded on the ideas of enabling social liberty and equality of opportunity. **Conservatism** is a political philosophy or worldview founded on the idea of retaining traditional social institutions and culture. **Left-wing politics** are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality. **Right-wing politics** are political positions or activities that view some forms of social stratification or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable.",
"what Americans call \"liberal\" is really center-right by international and historical standards. essentially, there is no real left-wing presence in the American political system. it ranges from the center-right to the far-right. in Europe the word liberal is still more closely associated with its traditional association as with \"economic liberalism\" meaning privatization and deregulation and free trade. this is in contrast with nationalism and socialism, which are both less liberal (and more collectivist) on economic policy. as for why things are this way? history and propaganda. the anti-Communist movement in America was incredibly dominant politically. it succeeded in making socialism a taboo subject and an unutterable word. so in America the language to label two opposed political movements started to focus much more on social dimensions rather than economic ones. an American \"liberal\" is socially liberal, which is opposed by the American \"conservative\" who is socially conservative. there is very little diversity on economic policy in America though. Both major parties are economically \"liberal\" though the Republicans are more extreme about that than the Democrats. This is just a way of saying that in America government policy on economy *always* favors the wealthy and large businesses and corporations.",
"Because countries have their own political spectrum. Take America; Democrats are the \"left wing\" party and the Republicans are the \"right wing\" party. However, if the democrats were running in the UK they'd be considered centre right and the Republicans would be considered far right. The left / right paradigm is best used when referring to individual policies, and not party's or people because it's all relative to where the center ground is. Whether you're liberal, communist, fascist, anarchist or socialist is largely irrelevant to that. In some societies classical liberalism will be a right wing ideology, in others it may be left. It depends on the average view within that country.",
"basically… History, then meanings change. it comes from British political history. for hundreds of years, the UK used to have two parties in parliament, The Whig and The Tory Party. in the 19th century, both parties argued amongst themselves, and changed their names. the Tory Party became The Conservative Party in the 1830s, the Whigs became The Liberal Party in the 1850s. the terms liberal and conservative are still used today, as those terms still relate closely with their political origins; the Conservatives are still conservative, and the Liberal are still liberal. the terms conservative and liberal are used in America, and thus around the world, because America was a British colony. their political system borrowed many terms and practises from the British system. they even had their own Whig Party, though it was not linked to the British party, and had a more conservative attitude than ours. so- the meaning of the word Liberal??? in etymology; which is the history of word origins, ‘Liberal' is derived from Old French, and the French got it from Latin (the old language of Italy). it means free, or when applied to a person, 'free man', i.e., not a slave. of course, ‘Libre’ still means ‘free’ in french, and we use 'free' the same way in English; is this seat free? that drink is free, etc. so its untrue to say “europe” as in france, italy (where Latin was once spoken), and here in the UK, we use and understand Liberal to still have its original, and traditional meaning. i imagine, tho I'm not sure, that the term would be understood in its original sense, in portugal, spain and germany, too. your Danish Party simply used a political term, but may have since drifted towards the right. by the way, we still have the Conservative Party in the UK, and you will often see them referred to as The Tory Party, or The Tories. The Liberal Party, now called the Liberal Democrats, is still going, though it is a very small party now, far behind Labour and Conservative in its number of seats in parliament. Labour was established at the very end of the 19th century, and has its basis in Socialism, which is more concerned with protecting the working classes, who were traditionally exploited by the upper (Whig and Tory) classes. the industrial revolution began in England at the start of the 19th century, so you had millions of people working long hours, for crap wages, in shit conditions, while their bosses got fat and rich. the same thing happens today in china, bangladesh, india etc. men did not get the vote until 1884 here, so you had a lot of workers without anyone to represent their concerns in parliament. you can see why there was a need for a political party to speak up for such people, who were literally disenfranchised; ie, did not have the vote. Labour and the Conservatives have been the two major parties here ever since the 1920s, when the Liberals began to fade away.",
"As an American, I always thought it was based on spending habits. Liberals are liberal with spending tax dollars. Conservatives are conservative with tax spending. Maybe its just me?",
"Think of it as a cross where you have right and left and then up and down is liberal and conservative. You can place a party where ever in this \"square\". America seems to have strong conservative right while in Europe the right is more liberal. URL_0",
"In America, liberal refers to the left wing since FDR was pretty liberal on the issue of alcohol and ended prohibition. That trend continues today with the left wing and a bunch of social issues. It doesn't refer to people who want economic liberalization, ie free market stuff."
],
"score": [
228,
113,
68,
20,
18,
14,
14,
12,
6,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Political_chart.svg/543px-Political_chart.svg.png"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6ho225 | Why did we change the "standard" time for the world from Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) To Universal Coordinated Time (UTC), even though they are the exact same time? | EDIT: Thanks for all the answers, guys. You've really helped a lot. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dizxaq7"
],
"text": [
"GMT is a time zone, like Pacific Daylight Time. UTC is a time standard that can be computed from anywhere. Before the standard there was a zero-base time logic to using the Greenwich Observatory solar measurements as the zero-moment for the 24 hour clock, and which was a standard called \"Greenwich Time\" or just \"Greenwich\", but never \"Greenwhich Mean Time\". The terms were functionally interchangeable but they aren't really the same thing. Of course that Greenwich standard was before super accurate clocks, so communicating time was a little tough. Meanwhile, with the advent of plate tectonics, which is only about seventy years old now, it turns out that Greenwich is _moving_, so even if it were a standard, it's not a useful standard. This is much the same deal as the difference between weight and mass. Mass is an absolute measurement that is constant regardless of circumstance. Weight is the force of that mass in one G of earth gravity. They happen to be equal because that's how weight is calibrated against mass. But they are technically distinct ideas."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6hoavz | Why is it so common to find bibles in American hotel rooms? | What's the history of it and why does it still happen? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"diztslk"
],
"text": [
"It's usually a Gideons Bible - Gideons is an evangelical organization that's been giving out free Bibles to hotels, schools, jails, hospitals, street corners etc for over a hundred years. They used to hand out little mini orange New Testaments on the street outside of my high school when I was younger. So Gideons donates to hotels to evangelize to people who are bored in their room and looking for something to read, and the hotels don't mind because they're free and people don't usually complain about a book sitting in a drawer."
],
"score": [
15
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6hol2z | How are stats about 'unreported rape' collected if they are unreported? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dizwm7t"
],
"text": [
"Just because a rape goes unreported to the police, doesn't mean it goes entirely unreported. In general, unreported crime statistics comes from surveys. Most governments (whether national or more local) do crime and safety surveys. These surveys ask you about what sort of crimes you experienced, whether you reported them, if you did how that went and if you didn't why not. Often these surveys are worded in such a way to avoid bluntly asking about the crime by name (\"have you been raped?\") but instead give a description of a crime (\"Has anyone forced you to have sex with them unwanted?\"). This is in part done to make sure that the stats collected are as reliable as possible, and eliminate as much own interpretation of particular crimes. This also helps differentiate between closely related crimes that most regular people might just heap together and helps build a pretty reliable picture."
],
"score": [
18
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6hoslu | Why is it that seemingly before the Renaissance movement, people had no idea how to draw in terms of three-dimensional perspective? Why did it become second nature for artists after this period? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dizzq4z",
"dizxydf"
],
"text": [
"I'm assuming you mean European art in the Medieval era, since there was certainly quite realistic art in Asia during the same time. People certainly knew how to, it's that they didn't care to. Similar to Cubism and Modern art, Medieval art had different goals than strict realism. We know this because they were capable of painting in a fairly realistic style in the Roman era, like this example: URL_0 The kind of mathematical, linear perspective we're all familiar with from art class was certainly invented during the Renaissance, but the simple idea of painting something so that it looked realistic is much older. A lot of medieval art is less about imitating life, and more about representing symbols. It matters less that a painting looks like a mirror or a photograph, and more that all the symbols and the relationships between them are clearly expressed. When the Renaissance came along, the fashion changed. In the same way that science was overtaking Greek style philosophy, humanistic art began to overtake the more symbolic art. It became more about precisely depicting something as it *exists*, instead of representing a combination of ideas. If you look at it that way, you can see the movement to more abstract art styles we're currently going through as a return to a kind of Medieval style than something completely unprecedented.",
"They did, actually. The Renaissance artists had examples from the Romans to follow. Medieval art is a different style with different values and a different focus."
],
"score": [
7,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_art#/media/File:Menade.jpg"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6hprcn | how does Subaru (allegedly) focus their marketing toward the LGBT community? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dj071h2"
],
"text": [
"Here's a good article about how Subaru discovered it's footing in the Lesbian community and how it went about advertising to them. I'd always known about \"Lesbarus\" but didn't realize how they came to be. I think Reddit would like the double entendre/tongue-in-cheek nature of the advertising. [How an Ad Campaign Made Lesbians Fall in Love with Subaru]( URL_0 ) In the mid 1990s, Subaru was suffering a downturn in the US. In an effort to focus their marketing, they set about identifying who their existing customers were. The majority of them fit into 5 categories: teachers and educators, healthcare professionals, IT professionals, “rugged individualists” (outdoorsy types), and lesbians. Subaru took a very subtle approach to marketing towards the lesbian community. Most of their ads appeared to be geared towards their other core groups, but then included subtle pro-LGBT messages or whose slogan had double meaning. > What worked were winks and nudges. One ad campaign showed Subaru cars that had license plates that said “Xena LVR” (a reference to Xena: Warrior Princess, a TV show whose female protagonists seemed to be lovers) or “P-TOWN” (a moniker for Provincetown, Massachusetts, a popular LGBT vacation spot). Many ads had taglines with double meanings. “Get Out. And Stay Out” could refer to exploring the outdoors in a Subaru—or coming out as gay. “It's Not a Choice. It's the Way We're Built” could refer to all Subarus coming with all-wheel-drive—or LGBT identity. It ultimately lead to how and what Subaru publicly backed. > That said, Subaru did not hide its support of gay and lesbian customers. While Volkswagen played coy about whether an ad perceived as gay-friendly really portrayed a gay couple, Subaru sponsored events like gay pride parades, partnered with the Rainbow Card, a credit card that instead of cash back offered donations to gay and lesbian causes, and hired Martina Navratilova, a lesbian and former tennis pro, to appear in Subaru ads."
],
"score": [
11
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://priceonomics.com/how-an-ad-campaign-made-lesbians-fall-in-love-with/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6hqw3b | Why does the offbeat in music feel so good to snap to? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dj0oy0q"
],
"text": [
"There's two different ways we can answer this: historically and psychologically. In a bar of music, you usually have 4 beats: 1234. This repeats over and over to make a song. In most modern rock music, beats 1 and 3 feature a bass drum, or low heavy note, and a snare or cymbal on beats 2 and 4 to give us an idea of tempo. Historically, this pattern that makes up rock music has it's roots in the slave tradition. American rockabilly and boogie woogie beats (precursors to rock and roll) came from a mix of western instrumentation and African rhythms. That's why it feels \"lame\" to clap on beats 2 and 4 to a classical symphony which predates rock. Psychologically, the reason we like to snap on beats 2 and 4 is because we are participating in a \"call and response\" with the beat. Downbeat on 1, respond on 2, downbeat on 3, respond on 4. It's like a little minigame for your brain. There is some speculation that the reason we like this game so much is because it developed as a means for humans to work menial labor jobs together in rhythm. Whacking grain to make flour was hard work alone, so you need 2 people doing it at once. How do you alternate whacks to ensure you don't hit each other? Play a rhythm game!"
],
"score": [
23
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6hr7he | How come today IS Saturday? Is today's name determined by consensus? | How come today IS Saturday? Is there any cosmological event that determines today's name? If all humans oversleep, can we skip a day's name, so if we over sleep Sunday and when we wake up on Monday, we call Monday Sunday!!! | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dj0laya"
],
"text": [
"The day names are based on Norse gods (sun, moon, tyr, woden, Thor, frigg, saturn - only Roman one), but you're asking abnout how we know what day it is. Our astronomy is more than good enough that if we were all passed out for a few days, we could easily just look at the sky and figure out what day and time it is. Probably was good enough to do that 500 years ago."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6hrg5d | Why do ghostwriters ghostwrite when they are clearly talented enough to make a name for themselves? | I mean there are known songwriters that don't sing also some people are ghostwriting entire books for famous authors. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dj0l1b6",
"dj0kldy",
"dj0leat",
"dj0mi34",
"dj0onxk",
"dj16hsy",
"dj0ofs4",
"dj0s15z",
"dj0s96t"
],
"text": [
"Some ghostwriters are already famous authors, and write for a paycheck. Some might be modestly successful, but an \"auto\"biography from someone famous is likely to make a lot more. Also, some writers like their subjects and want to write those stories. People line up to write for Presidents and Politicians. There's also less risk to your reputation, and some writers like the opportunity to take some literary risks or break the mold they are known for. And, of course, others do it to get writing \"credits\" under their belt. Manuscripts from nobodies end up in the circular file. But the new book from the guy that ghostwrote the last Kardashian Sutra is going to get some curious glances.",
"Because the *brand* of a famous celebrity is a strong selling point too. It's not just the quality of the work that makes sales.",
"Writing is a both a craft and an art. There are some people who are good at the technical aspects of putting together a coherent book, but lack the creativity to make original material. That sort of person is good at taking the jumbled memoirs of some celebrity and turning it into a well-structured story. And because people are buy it because they are fans of the celebrity, there aren't really going to looking for high-quality literature. Also, making a name as a writer is a matter of luck as much as talent. There are plenty of mediocre authors who had connections or were in the right place at the right time, and plenty of brilliant ones who were never recognized in their lifetimes. It is hard to dedicate your life to honing your art when you also have to work to pay the bills, so those brilliant but unrecognized authors are not going to be turning down paid work.",
"Good books don't necessarily mean sales. But writing alongside a celebrity whose endorsed products sell like hotcakes is guaranteed to provide a pretty paycheck.",
"At least for songwriting, at this point in time (with so much social media, paparazzi, etc.) being successful means having the whole package. You need to have at least a decent voice, be somewhat attractive, have some sort of a personality/style/something you're known for, and just have a certain something that will attract fans. Or you at least need 3/6. Someone may be incredible at writing songs that connect with people, but if they don't have a good voice, or are incredibly bland, or ugly, or uncharismatic, they wouldn't have success as a mainstream artist. And besides that, some people just don't want to make a name for themselves. There are a lot of tradeoffs to celebrity, and not everyone wants that.",
"I've ghostwritten music a few times. The people that have hired me were capable of creating it themselves, but were swamped with other projects. Often the agreement they made with their client was made weeks or months in advance, but as the deadline approached, other unforeseen projects or events came up and they needed help. I needed the money, so I agreed to help them. Now that I'm doing fine by myself, I no longer need to ghostwrite. Also at the time, they had lots of connections and I had only them.",
"Some perspective on it for me came from the movie exit through the gift shop; one of the artists hire legions of other artists to make and help conceptualize the art; realizing that they either dont have the means or motivation to do it alone. While they could probably make it on their own, a lot of artists lack the tools or financial stability to be fully independent, so they join someone elses team to get some direction. Even prodigies dont necessarily have the skillset to make money as businessmen, so they pour their ideas into a more reliable income source: someone whose already made it",
"I suspect ghostwriting must be similar to being a marketing communications professional. As a marketing communications professional, in addition to writing marketing pieces I wrote and/or edited letters and technical papers for the company president for which my name never appeared. Its under his name because it is his logic, its his technology, etc. and no one in his right mind would think I am an expert in the subject when I am helping to improve the image of the head of the company. However, he would put the important information deep inside the piece instead of at the front where it would gain attention and grasp the reader. His expertise is business and inventing stuff, not communication. If I didn't rewrite it no one would ever finish reading it. He would labor on and on about some aspect to boredom. I was relied on to rearrange it and put the compelling stuff right up front and leave the boring details to further back. Also, he as the head of the company has way too many other issues to deal with and would give me the data from some other piece to adapt into whatever communication he desired.",
"Just because you have talent does not mean you can make a name for yourself. There are seven billion people on this earth. Being a writer is a prestigious occupation, and there are literally millions of talented people out there who want to be writers. Every year publishers get deluged with stacks of unsolicited manuscripts from aspiring writers. So you see, there are a lot of talented people and not enough work to go around. Because of that, some writers survive by doing things like ghostwriting."
],
"score": [
331,
93,
54,
46,
13,
8,
4,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6hru4f | Why were Americans so distraught with Princess Diana's death? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dj0npfh",
"dj0omcu"
],
"text": [
"The same reason the rest of the world was. This was the first time someone famous had died due to people constantly taking pictures (also known as the paparazzi). It made people wonder why she was so desperate to get away from the people taking pictures. it made people start to ask whether it was okay to always be taking pictures and videos of famous people.",
"I guess an off shoot question: Why are Americans so intrigued by British royalty? Are they still as interested as they were with Diana? I remember there was crazy media attention around the birth of Prince George."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6hu5y2 | Why isn't the Rising Sun Flag of WW2 Era Japan looked down upon and hated as much as the Swastika? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dj15r6t",
"dj14db7",
"dj1r47e",
"dj144ms",
"dj19goy",
"dj1lxpj",
"dj16qb3"
],
"text": [
"Typically because it never affected Western society as much. You notice how people crack Nazi jokes about the Germans all the time - and none about Imperial Japan? It's because the Japanese Empire and their atrocities simply aren't well known. It's important to recognise that it's the same way in China; if you were to fly the Rising Sun Flag in Beijing, you would quite rightly get a proper thrashing. Fly the Swastika? Weird looks at most. It's just that things matter a lot more when they happen to people close to you, who are similar to you. In addition, the West has made a (justified) concerted effort to completely destroy Nazism's reputation. Nothing of the sort happened in Japan. There just wasn't an awareness of what happened in the East, outside of those actually involved in the Pacific theater, so Japan never had the reputational demolition that the Nazis had. I don't mean to imply that Western media intended to \"protect\" Japan as such, or that they swept it under the rug. It's just that there was both a lack of awareness, and also just a lack of fucks to give in general.",
"The swastika was an ideological symbol of Nazism while the rising sun was a symbol of Japan. The golden eagle which were a symbol also used by Nazi Germany but were a symbol of German greatness are still in use today. The situation in Japan and in Germany were quite different. While Germany were \"taken over\" by the Nazi party and the Nazi ideology Japans attempt at making an empire came from within and were considered more clean. The situation after the war were also quite different. Germans were angry at the Nazis and a lot of them even switched sides at the end of the war. Whereas in Japan the feeling was more of a \"we tried but did not make it\".",
"I believe it could be simply because people in the West don't know or don't pay attention to what happened in the East. People in China and Korea are still quite upset/mad/angry at the Japanese for what happened during the war, especially since there has been no real apology. I know some people that look at what the Japanese did as a genocide. In Nanjing they were killing men, women, and children, even pregnant women got a nice bayonet to their abdomen. There is the comfort women, Chinese and Korea women taken as sex slaves. I'm willing to bet the same thing happened in the Philippines and Singapore. There are the human experiments they did on people in China, all kinds of rank shit, like live dissections, freezing peoples extremities off to see what happens. But none of this really happened or was not talked about in the western countries. So it is like it never happened. I'm willing to bet most people in North America don't know about the human experiments they did.",
"Cause it has roots and meanings far deeper and older than WW2. South Korea however does consider it to be bad. Just recently with the game Persona 5, the devs removed the symbol from a characters sneakers for the Korean release for this very reason.",
"The Rising Sun flag that was used by the Imperial Japanese Army *is* looked down upon and hated as much as the swastika, actually, at least insofar as other Asian countries are concerned. When the JSSDF was established after the war, the Maritime Self-Defense Force adopted the same ensign the Imperial Japanese Navy used during the war, but the Ground SDF had to use a very different one.",
"It is though, depending on what country. Korea and China have much more bitter memories of the 1930s than their neighbors.",
"I would imagine it has to do with the motivation behind the symbol's represented group. The rising sun was a symbol of a country and it's motivation to expand economically, geopolitically, and militarily. The swastica was a symbol that represented a subgroup within a country that spread certain more distasteful ideology. People have a much different emotional reaction to the ideology and cultural memory of that symbol. My grandparents cry thinking about Pearl Harbor and the conflicts in the Pacific, as they were tragic and terrible. However, they are more angry when thinking about the Nazi regime and their methods. While we can certainly respect their military might and strategy at the time as opponents, their methods were detestable."
],
"score": [
335,
45,
29,
21,
13,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6hx9jr | Why are mascots a big part of American sports but not so much in Europe? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dj2251k",
"dj1yi5h",
"dj28bq6"
],
"text": [
"The focus on American sports tends to be more about the teams and the team franchise identity, when in Europe the focus is a lot more on locale. This came up a bit on a question a while back when someone was asking about how US teams can so easily change owners or cities compared to European teams. Because most American sports are only maybe 150 years old tops and organized play groups are mostly less than 100 years old, there isn't nearly as much history. The oldest European Football team (Notts County) has been active since 1862. The oldest American Football team, by comparison (The Green Bay Packers) joined the NFL officially in 1921. The focus on the franchise of the team versus the locale is also impacted by the relative size of the countries. It's easy to find a local team to support in England, where the UK club system can have hundreds of teams across all the various levels. There are 92 teams in the first four levels *alone*, while in the entirety of the NFL there are only 32 teams. Even just going with Level 1 teams, there's approximately 1 team for every 2,500 square miles in England, and in the NFL there's one team for ever **12,000,000** square miles. So it's a lot easier to associate with a franchise than a location, especially when that location might be five states over. And part of creating that franchise is by creating a mascot or icon to rally behind.",
"Our sports don't stop every two minutes for an ad break. American sports are all based around TV. This means huge amounts of downtime which isn't entertaining for people in the stadium. So they have mascots, cheerleaders, kiss cams, hot dog vendors, fighter jet flyovers, fireworks etc.",
"Because Americans love entertainment along with their sports, think about the Superbowl for example and it's insane halftime shows. It's also about team spirit and the competitiveness with sports. Australians love it too, we also have mascots."
],
"score": [
10,
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6hy6c0 | why does the queen still have royal riches and fame even though she has almost no authority over the British people's? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dj21u80",
"dj27e3x",
"dj22eut",
"dj25557"
],
"text": [
"The British Monarchy is, for both Britain and the whole United Kingdom, a sort of living monument. People usually talk about figureheads dismissively, but in the case of the Queen it's a very serious job, and it makes a real difference in the life of the country. A country's monuments and other symbols (flags, anthems, etc.) give its citizen a way to think about loyalty to the country separately from the country's politics. This lends stability to the country's politics, and a sense of unity to the citizens, because everyone understands that the country is bigger than just whatever people are arguing about right now. The fact that Queen Elizabeth II is a human being makes a her even more effective monument, because people like her as a person. This personal connection ties very powerful and positive human inclinations together. The whole thing also strikes me as incredibly british: as a \"living monument\", as I've called her, Elizabeth II's job is to be the most respectable and polite person in the world.",
"Back in the 18th century, King George (the Third, I think, though not 100% sure) was basically out of money. At the time, the monarchy privately held a huge amount of land, but poor financial management had left them basically broke. So, he made a deal with Parliament. The Parliament would take upon and cover the King's debts, and ensure a personal income for the royal family. In return, Parliament would recieve all incomes from the royal estates (which are still owned by the Windsors). This deal still stands. The Windsors recieve an allowance from the government of about 40 million pounds a year. Which is vast, under you consider that the government recieves something like *ten times that amount* in income from the royal estates. If the government ever called the deal off, they would in fact lose money.",
"Because call them what you will the fact remains that the Windsors are a rich family with many assets not least being attraction for tourists. It is estimated that the royal receiptstotal $200 million but the royal invoices generate $1000 million for the taxpayers",
"The Queen's personal wealth is mostly inherited: it's not as if she's given all her money by a sycophantic government or something. She is also actually head of state and so has quite a few official duties: many of them are ceremonial, but she also has a lot of diplomatic duties, such as meeting with other visiting heads of state. (The Prime Minister is head of government, which is a separate role; the American President happens to combine both roles.) She gets paid to perform those duties, from income generated by the Crown Estates (land managed by the government on behalf of the monarch -- a complicated arrangement put in place after one of her predecessors found himself in serious debt)."
],
"score": [
26,
10,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6hyc15 | Why is women's MMA so popular, while other female sports leagues are mostly ignored? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dj23r00",
"dj22ywv"
],
"text": [
"Hard to say. The two sports where female athletes seem to gain the most traction(tennis, MMA) have competitions where the men and women are competing roughly at the same time under the same organizational umbrella. In tennis this is tournaments like Wimbledon and the French Open, in MMA its Fight nights with many undercard bouts before the main event. This perhaps gives female athletes more exposure until they become stars in their own right whereas WNBA players are stuck in a league with no publicity.",
"It isn't. Ronda Rousey and Gina Carano are popular, not women's MMA. Hardly anyone knows who Megumi Fuji is."
],
"score": [
10,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6hydzj | Why is Amazon loved and Walmart hated? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dj23t5j",
"dj23wxw",
"dj237lf"
],
"text": [
"When I shop at Amazon I don't have to witness super trashy behavior from trashy people. The store isn't dirty, because I'm in my house. Their employees aren't incompetent because I don't have to see them.",
"Because Walmart is a more visceral experience. If you shop at Walmart, you're surrounded by poor people. It's a discount store that is generally targeted at lower income people, staffed by lower income people. If you shop at Amazon, you never see any of your fellow shoppers and you never see the employees. So you don't have the experience of associating with the hoi polloi. In essence, the people who hate Walmart tend to do so because it's considered crass and low class.",
"Around my area Walmart is disliked because of the types of people that hang around there... so amazon is liked because then you don't have to go to Walmart."
],
"score": [
21,
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6hyli4 | Why do most people tend to procrastinate, despite the fact that completing tasks earlier is much more comforting & less stressful? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dj25eog",
"dj26mkq",
"dj2gn06"
],
"text": [
"Unfortunately, like many questions about people and motivation, this doesn't have one answer, it has many. For some folks, the anxiety over performance keeps them from wanting to start a task. For others, they might believe they function better \"under a deadline.\" Another person might have poor time management skills and not believe they have the time to complete the task. Also, people generally like to avoid discomfort, and the work of the task is seen as uncomfortable. They may also be unable to clearly imagine the consequences of completing the task on time, or potential roadblocks that might add time to the task itself. I often find I procrastinate because I have anxiety about the finished product. If I finish early, instead of enjoying the completed task and moving on, I worry, r e-edit or correct whatever it is instead, pretty much endlessly. Instead of feeling relief, I feel anxious.",
"We've evolved to value short-term solutions. Putting off your homework lets you eat more. In the wild, eating more means you don't starve to death, so our brains priotize short-term decisions despite having long-term consequences. [A more detailed explanation.]( URL_0 )",
"I can only really speak for myself but the basics boil down to 2 things, firstly immediate satisfaction vs prolonged satisfaction, Let's use an example of each. Video games and going to the gym. It easier to visualize the satisfaction I will get by playing video games now then the satisfaction I will get from going to the gym. The video games way I will have the satisfaction immediately but as soon as I'm done that satisfaction will fade quickly, were going to the gym I will have to work far harder to get a lesser amount of satisfaction. The satisfaction from the gym won't fade in nearly the same way. The other problem that adds to the issue is people who procrastinate tend to feel they will always have more time. And doing it later will end the same. This compounds with the first issue. If I do it later I can have my immediate satisfaction now, and my prolonged later! Except this is rarely the case."
],
"score": [
15,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/pKyHX0zqynk"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6hz2up | Why are there more people of Hispanic descent in the USA than African descent, but the latter seem to be so much more represented in general? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dj2eiuu",
"dj2al04",
"dj2argj",
"dj28f0m",
"dj2bgzp",
"dj285rm"
],
"text": [
"There are a lot of social and cultural differences between african americans and latin americans that will account for why the latter don't really get that much attention drawn to them (keyword: drawn) * First of all, you have the issue of antiquity: African americans have been living in the US since the 18th century, firstly as slaves, then as pariah citizens and now as a (somewhat) fully integrated social/ethnic group Meanwhile latin americans or hispanic people have only \"appeared\" as a group since the late 70's, so it's really hard for latinos to get the same foothold as african americans beign such a new group. * Secondly, we have the issue of nationality: Though african american were first slaves, and, up to '64 they were treated as sub-citizens, they have always been american, born and raised in US, except ofc for first generation of slaves and the (allegedly) 1 million immigrants that brought the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 and 2007. Whereas hispanic groups in america have always been formed mostly by immigrants, a lot of which aren't even legal, which bring us to point 3 * Most of hispanics don't want the attention: While african american communities have been increasingly vocal trying to end all kind of racial segregation and injustice for their ethnic group, a lot of latino communities simply don't want that kind of attention drawn towards them, a lot of these people are in a somewhat stable but precarious situation concerning their or some family members visa and nationality, so most of the time they fear the hypothetical repercussions of raising their voice I admit this might not be the case for many second/third gen of latinos living in america, but that can be explained by the last point * Procedency and cultural dissemination. Unlike african americans, latino people usually get to america escaping from their own countries' situations: those can be Poverty (even illegals working as part timers or handymans can opt to a sustentially better lifestyle compared to their countries of origin) Political prosecution ( a lot of latin americans got to the US by the '70s, when a lot of countries where under a dictatorship) Crime (related with poverty, but a lot of people migrated hoping for a safer life for them and their families), etc.. So, in a way, most latino people tend to not voice their upsets because its \"still better than being back in x country\", and this correlates with them culturally, they learn and teach their children not to voice their problems or opinions because early, most of the time they complained, they got a \"well, if you don't like it, you can come back to where you came from\" kind of answer This, summed up with the fact that they usually don't spread out as a group (a lot of states have their \"latino areas\" where people doesn't even speak english most of the time), and the fact that, a lot of famous latino people tend to only be famous to this specific groups (for cultural or social reasons), might be the answer to why african americans seems to be so better represented in general. I hope this is readable, english is my 3rd language and it's 10:20 where I live and I pulled an all nighter. This came up a lot more politically oriented than I thought it would lol Source: I'm Chilean and most of my mothers-side family migrated to the US around the 90's, my 2 eldest uncles got in as wetbacks through the mexican border and then they settled and took my grandma and aunts to live there.",
"A) you could name more than 5 Hispanic Americans B) many Hispanic Americans don't look Hispanic - ie luis ck",
"What sports do you watch and what music do you listen to? You mention that you can only rattle off so many \"famous\" people of those races, but that is going to be influenced by the media you are consuming from the UK. For example, if you followed baseball as opposed to basketball or the NFL, you'd probably know of more hispanic athletes because that's a sport they are more involved in.",
"I would guess the language barrier. The vast majority of African Americans are fluent in English. I'd bet a comparativily smaller percentage of Hispanic Americans speak English.",
"The large number of Hispanic Americans is a pretty recent development. Some may go back to the Texas annexation and the Mexican Cession in 1848, but the vast majority immigrated in the 20th and 21st century, and rapidly increased especially after 1990. In contrast, black slaves were around since before the USA became a country, so they had more time to become a part of the culture, even though they were severly limited until the 1960s' Civil Rights movement.",
"Uma Thurman isn't Hispanic. Where did you get that idea?"
],
"score": [
15,
9,
7,
6,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6hzlaw | How is the current White House able to 'do nothing' as it were about the known fact that Russians hacked the voting machine software company? | How are they able to not respond to what many including myself perceive as a blatant attack on the US? I understand the increased sanctions were recently passed 98-2 in the Senate but how is the White House itself politically able to not respond to this attack? Not looking for partisan answers simply looking for political insight. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dj2fwpw",
"dj2iydl"
],
"text": [
"Because every country does things like this, including the US, and also because there is still absolutely no evidence that this influenced the voting software. The voting machine company isn't part of the US government, and as far as I know, the perpetrator of the hack hasn't been tied to the Russian government, so it would be silly (to put it mildly) to interpret this as an attack on the US.",
"There really isn't much they can do. The attack was on a software company, not the United States themselves. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the attack compromised any voting machines. While the attack is harmful to US interests, it didn't directly hurt the US, nor did it affect the outcome of the election."
],
"score": [
21,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6i0s4i | Why does nodding of the head signify Yes and shaking of the head No? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dj2me9u",
"dj2m0pd"
],
"text": [
"It doesn't everywhere. In Bulgaria for instance it's the other way around. (Nodding = no, shaking head = yes)",
"Because we all agreed that it does... well at least some of us. For example if you live in India, and then for you, the head movements you do mean something different."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6i2qat | Why is orange such a holy color in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dj32efo"
],
"text": [
"As I understand it it's not orange per se, but *saffron* which is extremely expensive to cultivate and shows the dedication to the faith through that cost"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.