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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6tm214 | What did women do hundreds and even thousands of years ago when they would get their periods? What was the general and the religious reaction to it? (Native Americans, pilgrims, Romans, Neanderthals, ect) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlm39rs",
"dllpazw",
"dllpkbf",
"dllrqej",
"dllpc5c"
],
"text": [
"The Museum of Menstruation site has some lovely articles on [menstrual history]( URL_0 ) and [historical European undergarments]( URL_1 ) which may shed some light. Most of this information is from about the 1700s onward, but you can assume that any culture that had textiles/sewing could probably make similar things. A lot of information about menstrual history is lost because it's a domestic and feminine problem, and would not be considered important by people writing about kings and wars and so on. Also because absorbent materials like grass, cotton, etc. would not be preserved well for archaeologists to find. Lastly, historical women might have had far fewer periods than modern women, because starvation, pregnancy, and breastfeeding can all stop the period.",
"wool. animal skin. paper. egyptians used to wear papyrus, romans wool. during the 1800s some women used homemade pads, but most of them did not and just bled through their clothes. source: googled \"menstrual cycle during history\" and clicked on the first link",
"There's no evidence to suggest they did anything special. They probably just let it bleed and kept going on with their days. Life in ancient times didn't stop when you got injured, gave birth, or anything like that. You just kept going. The first evidence of anything like tampons or pads comes from Ancient Egypt or Ancient Greece. The Egyptians used papyrus tampons, the Greeks used wooden sticks wrapped in wool lint, and the Romans made pads out of soft wool. The Jews had a rule that women who were menstruating were impure and had to be segregated for a week. Anything they touched or sat on was impure, and couldn't be used by anyone else.",
"Jewish law from way back (old testament) was that women needed to leave the camp during their menses because they were unclean.",
"Various degrees of segregation, basically. In some tribes, menstruating women would be shut in a tent and not allowed to take part in any activities such as preparing food."
],
"score": [
20,
19,
7,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.mum.org/pastgerm.htm",
"http://www.mum.org/underhis.htm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6tmcbu | Why has there been such a strong presence of anti-semitism for such a prolonged time in history? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dllus9j",
"dllss6z",
"dllw5ip",
"dllv23v",
"dllv3vb",
"dllv17f",
"dllxcpc",
"dllu9th",
"dllvg2m",
"dllxznl",
"dllyv7r"
],
"text": [
"Just wrote this out in another thread - Loosely about the nazis but fits here! Brace yourself, I went on a bit.. - religion. This is actually a much smaller reason than it seems, but there has been conflict between Christianity and Judaism focusing on the idea of 'Christ-killer' (romans killed him!? Jesus was Jewish!?). However, this was used as an excuse in the Middle Ages a lot, where we saw Jews being driven out of countries en Masse (most notably Spain, but also England). HOWEVER, this was unimportant to the nazis, who viewed Jewishness as being racial rather than religious - many victims of the Holocaust would not have defined themselves as Jewish at all, being a different religion, no religion, or simply considering their religion not definitive of their identity. - religious practices. Judaism has its sabbath on a Saturday. This seems insignificant, but became alienating to many when there were conflicts about working hours - Jewish shopkeepers/workers would want to close on a Saturday and work on a Sunday. This leads to separate shops, staffed only by Jewish people, leading to alienation and the idea of Jews as 'other' Similarly, different foods and clothes marked Jewish people as different, further enhancing their 'otherness'. Most significant to the 19th century, but once the system is set up, it remains. -big bad banker stereotype. This seems to stem again from centuries ago, when loan givers were often Jewish, as Christianity forbids usury but Judaism does not. However, it's not very representative. Some Jewish people in the C20th were bankers. Some were impoverished. There isn't much of an over-representation of Jews in these positions, but owing to historical racism those who were were considered representative. - bloody Bolshevik Jewish stereotype. (The idea that they are communists). Again, this makes little sense - especially if they're all bankers! Probably comes from some key figures on the left at the time being Jewish, but is hardly representative. However, it does fit in nicely with the 'traitor' narrative that Hitler loved - that Germany only lost WW1 because they were stabbed in the back by the Jewish leaders (Dolchstoßlegende). Again, this is bollocks. - 'the wandering jew' - this was likely far more significant than the others. As there is no Jewish 'homeland', and Jews faced anti-semitism across Europe (hence the rise of Zionism in C20) historically Jewish people have been fairly nomadic. This meant a level of exclusion and alienation, allowing them to be seen as foreign, untrustworthy invaders. While in Germany/Western Europe, most Jewish people were assimilated and culturally indistinguishable from any non-Jewish person, the same was not true in Eastern Europe, where (owing to and leading to oppression) Jewish communities tended to be very insular, speaking Yiddish and remaining identifiably separate from non-Jewish communities. Essentially, there has been a long, long history of anti-semitism, and despite stemming from roots we hardly remember, attitudes and stereotypes remain. The nazis adopted these ideas not because there /was/ a 'Jewish problem', but because when faced with terror, people look for a scapegoat, and history had one all set up. Tl;dr- old and lazy stereotypes, fed by fear of the 'other'",
"I'm in no way an expert but the book Jews God & History did a good job of explaining it. According to the book the Jews have always put a strong emphasis on knowledge and learning. They were able to acquire knowledge from their conquerors and outlast their oppressors. When a new conqueror came along they helped to facilitate the change of leadership and taught the new conquerors the ways of the subjugated people. This led to them gaining an usual amount of power in many cultures. I highly recommend reading the book. Jews are a small group but make up a huge number of nobel prizes in science and mathematics. Update: [In case you want to read it]( URL_0 ) It's simply written and very interesting. It even goes over how Christianity began. I've read many books but this is by far one of my favorites. I also recommend \"Unholy Alliance\" By: Peter Levanda. It explains how the Nazis came to believe what they did and the Occult/Secret Societies influence on Hitler.",
"Numerous reasons. **Religion** If you read the Gospels, you see a gradual shifting of blame for killing Jesus from the Romans to the Jews and an increasingly anti-Jewish polemic (John, the last Gospel written uses the word \"the Jews\" in quite a hostile manner, while Matthew, written after Mark has Pilate literally washing his hands on the death of Jesus and the Jews explicitly accepting responsibility for his death). The suspected reason there is that, as Christianity became a more and more \"evangelical\" and Gentile religion and most prospective converts were Roman, it helped the religion to spread by making the Romans not be the bad guys. Once the idea got firmly implanted (not helped by the fact that the Jews who hadn't converted to Christianity by definition rejected Jesus), it became easy to scapegoat the Jews whenever scapegoating was needed, because they were \"Christ-killers\". **Money** As Christianity became more and more established, laws were written to favor Christians over other religions, and to enforce Christian morality. The Jews were often limited in what professions they could practice. Often Jews would end up becoming money lenders and when they came to collect on their debts it was easy to say \"Jews are just naturally greedy\" etc. **Ghettoization** Jews were often forbidden from living in the same areas as Christians, attending the same schools, etc. When you have forced segregation it makes cultural assimilation impossible. As a result, Jews developed/maintained a distinct cultural identity that was separate from whatever country they were living in. This made hating them as unpatriotic easier, and also simply made them \"the other\", similar to modern forms of segregation. **Education** Since at least the development of Rabbinical Judaism, Jews have culturally valued education and literacy. This was in sharp contrast to most of the rest of Europe for thousands of years. As a result, Jews were often the \"ivory tower intellectuals\" of their day who \"thought they were better than us\" because they could read. **Business** Going back to the limited professions thing earlier, combined with education, meant that Jews often had jobs that were lucrative. Not always, mind you: some Jewish populations in Europe were desperately poor, far more so than the general population. But in some countries, the Jews were limited to certain professions that were relatively high profit (money lending, goldsmithing, etc), and indeed they sometimes ended up with essential monopolies. This lead to, in some situations, concentrations of wealth into the hands of Jews, with obvious social consequences. **Plagues** Because Jews were often relatively physically separated from the rest of society (see \"Ghettoization\" above), they tended to not get as many plagues, simply because they weren't in contact with the general population as much. This lead people to thinking the Jews had made a deal with the Devil or had a cure for the plague and were holding out on them, etc. **Feedback Loops** All of this combined together to be self-reinforcing. People thought the Jews killed Jesus, so they were hated, so society isolated them further, which made them more of the \"other\" which made them more hated, so society isolated them further, which made them more of the \"other\"...",
"The biggest reason is simply two things: 1. Human beings tend to have a tribal mentality. In other words: my tribe is good, your tribe is either bad or not as good. This applies to even groups of the same \"race\" or heritage or religion at times. People of other \"tribes\" are seen with suspicion and sometimes hate. 2. The Jewish culture has historically been very strongly against integrating into other cultures completely, as other groups have. EG: in some places when the Romans came to power, the cultures they conquered adopted Roman beliefs, customs, religions etc. Slowly going from \"barbarians\" to basically accepted as Romans. In general, Jews would never do this. Now, there are a few other small reasons, such as Jews not really seeking converts, and also Jews ending up in professions that would make them wealthy like banking and mercantilism (thus triggering another common human emotion of jealousy). But all those pale in comparison to those big two IMO.",
"Jews don't fit the national identity of anyplace they live. The word \"Gentiles\" refers to non-jewish people, but what it historically refers to are people who live in states (nations). Having national identity is directly contrary to being jewish. Every civilization in history has relied on national identity to create and sustain unity. A population of prominent, smart, wealthy people who are not members of the national identity of a civilization will always come into conflict with its leadership and national identity. Hence anti-semitism is really states rejecting (the) people without nations.",
"I once did a paper on this, and my position was that there are three phases of Antisemitism: Antisemitism 1.0 (Religious) \"The Jews killed Jesus and need to be punished\" - This was a main theme until modern times Antisemitism 2.0 (Social) \"the Jews are clannish, don't fit in, and have too much influence\" - This was the main thread until the mid 20th century, reflected most obviously by the Nazis Antisemitism 3.0 (Political) \"Israel oppresses the Palestinians, so Jews are to blame for Mideast problems\" This is becoming a popular view on some college campuses nowadays. It is further fueled by discomfort with US support for Israel. All three of these ideas are stupid .",
"I'm also not an expert, but the answers so far to me seem insufficient, and in some cases a little bit creepy. This question is problematic precisely because you're asking about a lot of time, but **tl;dr**: Because Jews make a point of living separate to the general citizenry, the idea that the Jews are literally responsible for murdering god on earth is a powerful one, and to some extent, Christianity has been lucky to hang around long enough for that idea to take deep root. To start with, Jewish scripture demands Jews remain separate to the dominant culture, and maintain their own customs. (I would point out though, this does not allow Jews to consider themselves above or separate to the Law; Jewish law specifies that Jews are required to follow the law of the land.) This is never good for fostering good relations. Where you create difference, you will inevitably invite comparison, and there will always be a negative and a positive in that. And when people are looking for someone to blame for something, the different ones are easy to choose. Next the institutionalisation of the idea that the Jews killed Jesus Christ within Christian doctrine (most notably in the Gospel of Matthew), is responsible for a lot of shit. Once you connect the whole Jewish people with the literal murder of God, it's an easy step to demonising them and marginalising and oppressing them in any number of ways. (As a side note, this claim of deicide has been repudiated by many churches and has no supporting evidence.) At the heart of this phenomenon is this connection within Christian and the following Western culture, between Jews, the death of the Christian God, and therefore the work of the Devil. Why would anyone want to do this? Politics. The original early Christian religion would have wanted to differentiate themselves from Judaism and the Roman Culture from which is sprang. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the narratives of Jesus would present both the Romans and the Jews as the primary antagonists, just like a teenager rebelling against their parents. Remember, the Early Christian Church was looking for members, and they would have been looking for Jews to become Christians, so at the time it would have been extremely confronting to hear you were being held responsible for killing God, and that was the point. This appeal becomes even more obvious when you think that Paul nullified the need to follow all the difficult laws of hygiene and purity in Leviticus. You no longer needed to worry about eating pork or shrimp or what you sow in your fields or getting the tip of your dick cut off. All you had to do was accept Jesus as Christ, and all was well. But once that anathema had been planted, further political forces simply exploited the narrative to their benefit across thousands of years. If you are king, and you need to ensure your people are loyal, what better way than to send them out to kill some outsiders. It has the benefit of both proving loyalty, and dispatching with the undesirables. If a plague, say the black plague, devastates your country, and it's 1310, can you explain to your people that it's a tiny creature that cannot be seen, that is being carried by fleas that are hitching a ride on rats and mice? Or are you going to tell your people that God is punishing them for their tolerance of heresy and heathens, and the only solution is to repel the Christ-Killers? What if your people cannot feed themselves? Will you pay money out of your own coffers to feed them and give them work, or will you confiscate someone else's land and prohibit their work so your people can eat and work? Is there a depression? Are you going to explain that you lost a world war, and now the country is bankrupt, or will you blame the Jews for sullying the pure, Christian, Aryan blood of your people, and sucking it dry. It is far easier to explain, and it feels good to be able to point to someone and say, \"This is your fault\", rather than have to think of an answer yourself, or yet more difficult, take responsibility yourself. All the narratives of anti-semitism, whether explicitly Christian or just Western, ultimately find their root in the idea that the Jews killed Jesus Christ. From there, Jews become cheating, lying, conniving, dangerous, demonic, grotesque, murderous, vindictive, vampiric..... the list is very long. And while the Church has now (really recently) repudiated this view, the damage was done long ago. However, for that to really matter, that also required Christianity to be dominant, which it has been for some time, and that's partially lucky. The largest empires and widest explorers have been christian, and so these biases have endured and travelled, and crept through many cultures. It is convenient for any tribe to have a scapegoat upon which to blame their troubles, and the Jews have tended to fill that role very well. But others have been victimised in this way too, and continue to be victimised. It's just that Jews have been around a long time, and the culture that invented the prejudice against them has persisted, and so therefore has the prejudice. There are no references here, but if you want some, I can provide.",
"It is also very common throughout history for communities to use minority groups as scapegoats for their problems. Some differences in culture do create friction, and then this offers a convenient place for blame. Then when you consider the business related stereotypes it allows for 'proof'; for example traders, lawyers, bankers, whatever the business, jewish people integrated themselves into the economic life of communites. They are integral in some ways to the functioning of a community and distinctly apart in others, creating an easy target for hatred or jealousy.",
"Antisemitism pinpoints Jews as being the essence of whatever moral failings exist at any given time in any culture. Every society has a set good and bad values and so Antisemitism will morph to reflect that, it never goes out of style. A God fearing Christian peasant perceived Jews as being Christ killers, usurers and everything a good Christian should not be. A cold war era communist perceived Jews as capitalist bankers out to exploit the proletariat and subvert communist countries, a capitalist perceived Jews as secret Bolsheviks out to subvert capitalist countries and so on and so on. The language and tropes of Antisemitism change but the idea is the same - Jews are the other within, as well as a lightning rod for moral failure.",
"The tale of [William of Norwich]( URL_0 ) in the 1100's is said to be a major turning point in European anti-Semitism. In a tl;dr version of events, a young boy was murdered in Norwich, England, and the blame was pinned on the Jewish community with alleged ritual killing being the motive. Tensions were already running high in the area as the Jewish community had been invited there from over seas to become money lenders, which the Church were prohibited from participating in, causing suspicion among the ruling classes. There were fears that the money lenders were becoming too powerful despite their small numbers. The murdered boy was posthumously canonized, possibly in a move to demonize the Jews. Suspicion turned to hatred, rumours of blood libel (human sacrifice) spread across the region and across much of England finally leading to the expulsion of Jews and a subsequent ban on Jewish people settling in the country. The stories followed the expelled Jews to their new homes, mostly France and Spain, and continued to be embellished. Not quite as tl;dr as I'd hoped, sorry.",
"Some of you will notice that a lot of the more reasonable explanations above (or perhaps even below) contain a lot of contradictions. For example the Jews can be hated for being bankers and Communists, or Christ-killers and atheists, *at the same time* by some very special people. There is a reason for that, and it has much more to do with the anti-Semites than anyone else. Many or even most of them trend strongly toward a thing called *right-wing authoritarianism*. Let's be charitable and say that RWAs are not very good at figuring things out for themselves, so they rely upon the statements of authority figures they trust to tell them what to think. They further have the idea that if they believe something hard enough it becomes real, and their beliefs can change instantly, depending on what they are told by their authority figures. They are inspired primarily by fear, so all a leader has to do is scare them to trigger a faith-based change of views. This makes right-wing authoritarians very tolerant of contradiction and hypocrisy, as long as it fits their belief system of the moment. It's not rational and you're never going to win a rational argument with one of them because logic itself is pretty much outside of their skill set. There's a simple ELI5 word for that kind of thinking, but I'll leave it up to you to guess what it is. If you can't, turn off the Fox News for a minute, will you?"
],
"score": [
300,
104,
91,
23,
12,
8,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.amazon.com/dp/0451529405/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_-ABKzbN55GW2V"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Norwich"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6tmm00 | Without hatred, please explain to me why the debate over confederate monuments has become so heated/relevant lately? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dllsj9b",
"dlly8c9",
"dllzbrm",
"dllwdjn"
],
"text": [
"Keep the Monuments side: It's a matter of herritage for many in southern states to remember that even if they lost, they fought what they percieved as tyranny. Removed the Monuments side: It's a matter of fighting against racism by removing celebrations of those who fought to retain slavery.",
"For a thorough, eloquent, moving expression of the reasons and rationale behind removing the monuments, I encourage you, no I beseech you, to watch the [speech that New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu gave]( URL_0 ) back in May as crews were preparing to remove the statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee from it’s pedestal, the last of 4 Confederate monuments that the city had voted to remove 16 months before in December 2015. You may have seen it already. It “went viral” and got lots of media attention. But maybe you’re like Mary Schmich, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune. “Who reads a whole speech? By a mayor, any mayor, anywhere?”, Schmich [wrote]( URL_1 ). > But after the accolades kept floating past on social media — 'stunning,' 'moving,' 'must-read' — I clicked on the speech out of curiosity. > I've been thinking about its eloquence, power and humility ever since. The speech has been positively compared to Barack Obama’s 2008 speech on race, and Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1965 commencement address at Howard University, considered a landmark moment in the civil rights struggle. “Moving, powerful, truthful, fearless. Every American should read this speech. 100 years from now they’ll study it” — Paul Begala, advisor to former President Bill Clinton. Seriously, just listen to the speech (you don't even have to watch). It's much better than reading the transcript, and it addresses the points about heritage and history head on. ETA: it's not without it's detractors, however the objections are mostly about Landrieu putting himself out there and seeming to take personal credit for what took months of activism to achieve, and how he doesn't seem to be taking any personal initiative to continue this effort.",
"I grew up in the South in a very progressive non-racist family. Confederate flags were about as popular as any state flag. It was the region. At folk music festivals old men would walk around in grey uniforms and have reenactments. It wasn't racism. It was just history. I'd say my entire family both hated slavery and also respected the 200 years of history we'd had in the area. Everything sucks at some point. Now, instead of making real changes in the way minorities are treated, we're making excuses about flags. Let's stop cops shooting black people on the street. That should be a higher priority.",
"The anti- side is largely based on the notion that the existence of a monument (or a name on a building) de facto expresses approval for every element it represents. The pro- side is appalled by the Soviet-style whitewashing of history to match current trends. If you accept such notions, you're going to ultimately end up with no such monuments at all - because you can find scurrilous/scandalous details about *any* historical figure."
],
"score": [
49,
9,
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0jQTHis3f4",
"http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/schmich/ct-new-orleans-confederates-mary-schmich-met-20170523-column.html"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6to388 | Why do other countries (outside of the US) have little or no commercial breaks on TV? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlm9nv7",
"dlm4oa3",
"dlm649f"
],
"text": [
"As an example, I believe England has their stations technically run by the government, kind of like PBS here The US on the other hand leases out different bands to companies (nbc, cbs, etc) so they have to pay for their costs",
"You may want to be more specific as many countries have just as many commercials on TV as the US does.",
"Turkey has 2 hour long shows with 1 hour advertisement. They usually take 7 to 10 minute breaks every 15 minutes."
],
"score": [
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6topbs | where did the various street designations (Street, Drive, Road, Lane, Boulevard, Avenue, etc.) come from, and why are certain ones chosen for certain streets? | Is it all just random, or are there specific reasons? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlmcerz",
"dlmbyu4",
"dlmaecy"
],
"text": [
"Each city can name their road how they want so those are not absolute, but here a basic description of different names for road. Boulevard : Large multi-lane road usually divided by median. Ideally, boulevard have higher quality landscaping and scenery. Avenue : Those are historically a dead-end with tree on each side that lead to a building. These days we often use that word for a small residential road that are perpendicular to bigger street or a road with trees each side. Street : Street is a generic term. In come from Latin Via Strata, which mean layered road of paved road. Basically, any road that isn't made of dirt is technically a street. That said, in general street are secondary road made for circulation. Drive : In the past it was usually to connect to a grazing area for domesticated animal. These day we often see the name use for road that follow the contour of a mountain or a body of water. The principle here is for a slower drive to see the scenery. Lane : It's part of a road that is used by a single line of vehicle. So if you name your road, that usually mean that it's a narrow road with only place for a single line of vehicle. Like I said, those are usually the meaning behind those names, but a city can do whatever they want. Sometime the name of the road doesn't really apply, but they keep it for historical reason or simply because it sound good.",
"TL;DR: Convention, as described in the Vox video linked elsewhere in-thread. Developers *tend* to adhere to naming conventions, and municipal authorities *tend* to enforce naming conventions, but at the end of the day naming conventions are just that: conventions. Most of the time they can be deviated from for any reason or no reason at all. In more detail, it's almost entirely arbitrary. First, you need to understand how streets come to be in the first place. These days, pretty much all of the land out there is controlled by some kind of municipal government. Long gone are the days in which settlers in \"empty\" territory (because indigenous peoples Don't Count, dontcha know?) built towns on an ad hoc basis *before* a municipal government was really put in place or bothered regulating such activities. No, in developed countries, no street goes anywhere without prior approval by some local government. That said, what tends to happen is a developer submits a plan for approval to one or more local government entities. After an arbitrary amount of negotiation and revision, the plan will be approved, at which point the developer can start construction. Part of that process includes a street layout, and part of *that* process includes naming the streets. Street names are thus just one of the things that must be approved by the relevant local municipal government before becoming official, but in most jurisdictions there's no particular law requiring certain kinds of street be given certain kinds of designations. It's *customary* to name certain kinds of streets \"streets,\" others \"roads,\" \"lanes,\" \"avenues,\" \"boulevards,\" whatever, but there's really nothing stopping a developer from submitting any random road name they want for a particular street, and nothing stopping the municipal authority from approving any name that happens to be submitted.",
"A street is a road but a road isn't always a street. A road can also be an avenue or boulevard- it's the general term for anything that connects two points. From there the names of roads can be shaped by their environment and/or the form of the road. [Video of Vox that explains all this]( URL_0 )"
],
"score": [
15,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/yqmso0c9CBs"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6towuo | Why is wearing fur taboo, but no one really cares about wearing leather. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlmceag",
"dlmbt9f",
"dlmbw20",
"dlmc04x",
"dlmd3bh",
"dlmbqu5",
"dlmcswl",
"dlmf0f0",
"dlmeg4i",
"dlmcgoz"
],
"text": [
"Fur gets more flack because furs are seen as luxury goods, they still look like the animal killed, and it's hard to prove the fur was sourced \"ethically\". Leather is practical - it is resistant to damage, stains, scratching, etc. A good leather jacket can save your skin or even your life if you're on a motorcycle and have an accident. Leather used to be used as armor material, and still is used by modern armorers for some things that need flexibility (synthetic fabrics have their drawbacks, but are favored now in place of leather due to cost and breathability). Fur, however, is expensive. Fur is easily damaged, hard to care for, and while very warm, provides few of the benefits leather does. Fur also, and this is important, STILL LOOKS LIKE THE ANIMAL IT WAS SKINNED OFF OF. People who hate fur clothing and accessories most often feel this way because they empathize with the fur's former owner, and sourcing \"ethical\" fur - fur pelts harvested without cruelty, from animals kept humanely or even from wild animals - is difficult, if not impossible. A mink stole with the head still on is going to turn some people's stomach, because you are wearing the de-boned corpse of an animal around your neck as a fashion statement. There isn't a practical reason for this - you could use a wool, cotton, or synthetic garment the same way - and your visible choice to display rikki tikki tavi's mutilated cousin on your body the way others show of jewelry is cause for some people to feel contempt. Leather gets a slight pass (only slight, though) for the following reasons: * 1. leather doesn't look like cow. * 2. leather is a common man's dead animal clothing material - it's relatively cheap and easy to come by. * 3. there are practical reasons for wearing leather. and * 4. fake leather still looks like actual leather, unless you're up close. (As someone who just spent a month shopping for leather couches, this is an annoying fact.) IF someone has a problem with fur, they likely have a problem with real leather too. They just won't call you on it until they can see that you're wearing cow, not poly-urethane over polyesther.",
"I think it's seen as acceptable to wear leather since they didn't kill the cow just for the leather. Pretty much the whole cow gets used. No one is buying fox steaks though, so the rest of the animal is wasted. A lot of vegans won't (or say they won't) wear leather though.",
"I believe because we use more of the animals that produce leather (cows, ostrich, alligator, horse, etc) for the market. Animals that are used for fur are usually only killed for their fur and not their meat. It is hypocritical given the shamefully low and brutal standards afforded a lot of the animals we use as meat but this is my opinion",
"If you compare the conditions in the fur industry to the leather industry, it is akin to battery farmed eggs versus free range, and while humans in general don't give a fuck about the suffering of a chicken, if it is cute and furry people get more upset about locking dozens of them in a cage.",
"Leather is the byproduct of another industry (meat). With fur, the animals are generally just raised to be killed and skinned. If we rounded up cows just to skin them and discard the carcasses, I'm sure it would be less diserable.",
"Wearing fur is fine, unless you're in a very PC place or a supermodel.",
"I think we'll get there, society just needs time for this kind of changes, same goes for vegetarianism. Also, People know it's wrong, but as long as it's commonly accepted to use leather they won't renounce from buying/using leather",
"AFAIK fur is sometimes obtained by skinning live animals to prevent damage to the product, especially if it's about wearing the head as well. There are also countries where living conditions of fur animals are far less regulated than those of farm animals. The point of leather being a byproduct of another product (meat) the average guy seems to be fine with no matter the means to obtain it is definitely valid too.",
"One thing that I didn't see mentioned (sorry if I missed it), is that the cow (for leather) is killed _then_ skinned. There are videos on YouTube of Chinese fur farms skinning animals alive and throwing them into a pile (still alive). It's a different level of cruelty. Whether or not you agree with wearing fur, would you really want to support people who can inflict that kind of anguish on another living being?",
"There was a standupshot recently that explained this. People vocally hate on fur so much because rich ladies are MUCH easier moral targets than gangs of bikers. Joking aside there are a few more factors at play. A big factor is that the hides for leather are usually a byproduct, obtained during the butchering process of cows for meat. There are many types of rarer animals that are raised, or hunted primarily for their fur. many species have been wiped out, or pushed to the brink of extinction in the name of trendy coats."
],
"score": [
92,
75,
11,
9,
6,
5,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6tqi16 | What differentiates onomatopoeia across languages despite having similar sounds to base them off of? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlmp1k4"
],
"text": [
"Primarily the langue construction and how words are formed from those sounds. The noises birds make, for example, sound interesting depending on what language you start from."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6tqjdj | How do you create new words in logographic alphabets? | I'm thinking like alphabets like Kanji or Chinese alphabets that aren't phonetic. Does someone come up with a new symbol? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlmreze"
],
"text": [
"Yes, someone comes up with a new symbol just like we come up with a new word. In a general sense you can divide symbols between those that are completely unique - someone created a new symbol from scratch that looks like nothing else - and those that are compound symbols. Compound symbols are sort of like how we sometimes (or every single time if you're German) create words by combining existing words like motorbike or rechtsschutzversicherungsgesellschaft. Most of the Chinese and Kanji characters you are probably looking at are compound characters made of specific strokes that a native reader can identify (much like how you can easily tell that æ appears to be made of a and e) so they don't really have to remember thousands of entirely unique symbols, they remember a smaller library of strokes and then know how to put them together in the same way we know how to put letters together to spell words. In Chinese there are still some phonetic characters (where a symbol is meant to represent a sound rather then a word) and even *compound* phonetic characters where the symbol is composed of strokes representing the sounds need to speak the word. In Japanese the direct phonetic characters are called katakana, many of which are close or identical to the strokes combined to create the more complex Kanji single symbol words."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6tqp2r | Do actors who smoke in movies actually smoke tobacco or is it some kind of placebo cigarette? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlmr4zd"
],
"text": [
"Usually honeyrose herbal cigarettes. Chocolate flavored, nicotine free. In sons of anarchy however, they smoke American Sprits"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6ts2fd | If human civilization ended tomorrow, how long would it take for all evidence of our existence to disappear? | I'm thinking about the Egyptians. In building the pyramids they've done something that we don't fully understand to this day. Surely over the last 5000 years some things have decomposed and become dust and it's likely we've lost the value of the vast majority of their intelligence. If our civilization ended tomorrow, how long before some future civilization came along and couldn't find things like computer chips and cars and just decide to judge us completely off only our largest structures? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dln30k1",
"dlnbhdi"
],
"text": [
"The longest lived structures would be large stone megaprojects like the Pyramids, the Great Wall of China and Mount Rushmore. These would outlast any other kind of composite structure no matter how robust, with the possible exceptions of nuclear waste sarcophaguses and some specialized bunkers, like the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. These could last easily centuries without maintenance and still be recognizable, but not more than a few thousand years. Common made things like teapots, cellphones, cars, bridges and skyscrapers would all be equivalent to trash in their longevity, due to being made of thin, refined parts and limited design lifespans. The longest lived human-made structure would likely be the leftovers from the Apollo missions on the moon. These could remain in a recognizable state for about 50 000 years, because the Moon is so geologically inert. There's a chance it could be accelerated by a random asteroid or two, but it's a slim chance. Much archaeological evidence would continue to suggest our existence for many thousands of years, under a few meters or few dozen meters of dirt: building foundations, glass, landfills and collapsed tunnels could be around until they broke down into the crust and did something interesting like fossilize (or whatever CRT TVs and daipers do when left buried for ten thousand years). This kind of evidence, if it could be found by a future civilization, would still be around until our continents shifted about so much that the landmasses we know and love were gone completely and sunk into the Earth's interior. That could take many millions of years. All satelites and space missions would either get covered in dirt or be perturbed and crash within a century, with the notable exceptions of the Voyager probes, New Horizons, and possibly a blastplate from [Operation Plumbob]( URL_0 ). EDIT: I don't know much about continental movement terms EDIT: Someone else mentioned pollution and atmospheric markers. The aliens could definitely find evidence of when we were affecting the world's climate with a fair degree of accuracy using things like ice core samples and geology.",
"That would depend on who and when the determination was made, and the intelligence of the being to recognize the evidence. For example, lets assume all visible signs of human activity were non existent, would some future being recognize our existence because it found evidence of plastic in the genetic code of fish and the composition of the ocean? Would the strata of time show evidence of man-made composite materials, CO2, or ground pollution from colonial period smelting plants? Would these future beings be able to point to particular layers in the strata and say that this was the time of human intervention?"
],
"score": [
13,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob#Pascal-B"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6ttl21 | How do News/Radio networks gain political biases? | Many talk about how some networks are left wing or right wing, do they start out intending on being nonbiased? Do they start hiring people with only certain beliefs? What's up? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlnkhfk",
"dlnn7ln",
"dlneunn"
],
"text": [
"Any organization, whether it's a news network or not, is made of people. All people have opinions/biases. The people at the top, providing funding and direction, have a major influence over what stories are told, how they're told, and by whom they're told.",
"Fox News was intentionally founded as a right-wing news station. MSNBC was not founded as a liberal one, but when it turned out politically biased TV can make money, they decided to go in a decidedly liberal direction. MSNBC is an interesting case study because they started out with a slight conservative bias (Ann Coulter worked for them in the 90ies), turned conservative in 2001, but it turned out that they couldn't make any money that way. So they later decided to give a liberal bias a try, which apparently worked for them.",
"This is a good question, I would say that political ties, money, power, swaying the popular vote. Theres many reasons they could have for being biased but in the end its to give their views the advantage. There should almost be regulations in journalism to prevent bias. Because when you're reporting on something there shouldn't be opinions only facts. Everyone forms their opinion from the facts thats how its supposed to work"
],
"score": [
10,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6tttp9 | Why does UK English just say "in hospital" when US English says "in THE hospital"? | For example, the recent British news story about Jeremy Clarkson said he "almost died in hospital." In US English we would have said he "almost died in *the* hospital." Why does UK English not put a "the" in front of hospital? I can't think of any other nouns that have this same lack of "the." No one says "he was in restroom" or "he was in grocery." **edit**: Thank you everyone for your answers! I get it now. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlngm9q",
"dlnisdn",
"dlnomou",
"dlnvpae",
"dlntgz4",
"dlnlmpq",
"dlnr9a2"
],
"text": [
"There are other similar ones such as going to church/school/bed. The distinction between those and things like the grocer, is that they convey the idea of being in a certain state. e.g. I'm going to church vs I'm going to the church. The first implies you are going to church for Sunday service or similar. The second just means you are going to the physical church building. I'm not sure why they diverged on some things like hospital but not others. Edit: to add... so in the UK we might say, I'm going to THE hospital (to visit my friend), but I'm going to hospital (for surgery)",
"It's an \"abstract state\", rather than a specific instance. So if I said \"I'm going to the hospital\", people would infer I mean the local one, or perhaps a specific one which is clear from context (eg we have an eye hospital in my town) -- and it may not be for treatment, I could be visiting a friend. But if I said \"I'm going to hospital\", it could be any hospital anywhere; it also clearly indicates I will be a patient (the state of being In Hospital). Another case I can think of is clubs/societies: \"This one time, in Band Camp...\"",
"I'm going to the hospital = I'm going to the place where medical services are performed. I'm going to hospital = I'm going for medical services.",
"When you drop a/the, you're implying that the next word is a transitive state. In denial, in grief, in school, etc.; it's a state of being. So in hospital would imply he's in the state of being treated, while 'in the hospital' has more emphasis on WHERE he is. I'm sure someone can explain it more technically correct, but you can see there's a difference plainly between the two, rather than just a difference in dialect.",
"Do Americans say \"he's in the prison\" instead of \"he's in prison\"?",
"You could ask why Americans say math and not maths when it's an abbreviation of mathematics. It's just a regional difference without much thought put into the grammar behind it. \"Could care less\" is one that sounds incredibly grating to me but normal to a lot of people.",
"> No one says \"he was in restroom\" or \"he was in grocery.\" No, but Americans do say things like *\"I went to space camp\"* rather than \"*I went to THE space camp\"*. Adding a \"the\" makes you sound like you are specifying a particular one out of many. If you just want to be generic and refer to any hospital you can say \"I went to hospital\". It simply sounds unusual to Americans because we always hear it the other way."
],
"score": [
227,
53,
22,
22,
10,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6ttxw1 | Are infamous figures referred to by three names to protect those with similar names? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlnl8b8",
"dlnqpjd",
"dlnrzys",
"dlnpgqx",
"dlnr3bm"
],
"text": [
"No. Al Capone, gangster, is referred to by two names. Same goes for Jeffery Dahmer, Jim Jones, Charles Manson, Saddam Hussein, and Elizabeth Bathory. Hitler and Stalin just get one name. Sometimes people just go by three names, like Jamie Lee Curtis, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Neil Patrick Harris. As far as I know, none of them are considered infamous.",
"That is one reason. The last thing you want is for someone with a vigilante mindset to find someone in their locality with the same first and last name and then \"take matters into their own hand\". They want to avoid mistaken identity. The other reason is that in the United States it is pretty uncommon for people to go by their full first, middle, and last names. So if there is an alleged perpetrator named \"James Fields\" and he gets wide enough publicity as \"James Fields\", every other James Fields ends up with a bit of a smudge on their reputation, even among people who know that they had nothing to do with the infamous actor. In other words, they get \"Oh...your name is James Fields, like that guy from Charlottesville\". OTOH, if the media refers to them in an uncommon way that seems unnatural, like \"James Alex Fields Junior\", then it creates a bit of a separation between the alleged perpetrator and everyone who shares the name. Basically, it's an attempt to avoid \"ruining the name\" rather than an attempt to avoid \"mistaken identity\".",
"It's just to be specific. The people you listed are all criminals, and they were ID'd in the news by all three names because their three names together are less common than two. E.g. There were plenty of John Booth's when Lincoln was killed, but far fewer John Wilkes Booth's.",
"A podcast I listen to recently touched on this and brought up how it's done for serial killers specifically, though obviously anyone can choose to go by their full name, as someone else pointed out with some celebrities.",
"Cant say for sure, but i refer to myself with my middle name/initial all the time. For 2 main reasons, on paper and emails, it looks more professional, people tend to take it a bit more seriously. Also my first and last initial is K, so I add my middle initial to remove all doubt that my i tials are not KKK."
],
"score": [
227,
18,
7,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6tuxpl | why do people constantly compare communists and nazis? Aren't they diametrically opposed ideologies and didn't the communists defeat the nazis? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlno282",
"dlnodxq"
],
"text": [
"Both systems result in the deaths of millions. By shear numbers, communist russia killed way more people than the Nazis did. Politics is a horseshoe, as you get closer to the extreme edges, they start to look a lot like each other.",
"This is pretty specific to America, as the McCarthy era systematically defamed communism and socialism to legitimise their wars in south east Asia. This policy resulted in the brainwashing of an entire generation and still can be felt in todays america."
],
"score": [
14,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6tv1mh | Why is the British Army just the British Army, while the other services are "Royal"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlnpgxa",
"dlnp6f0",
"dlnq3x9",
"dlnpdh1"
],
"text": [
"It has to do with history and tradition. A long time ago, before England united with Scotland to form the United Kingdom, there were many wars as factions united behind either the parliament, or the King. In the mid 1600s one such war, the English Civil War, resulted in King Charles I being executed and England temporarily becoming a Republic with no King. During the English Civil War, the parliamentarians raised the first professional army in English history, which was called the New Model Army. When Charles II restored the monarchy, there was a lot of jockeying for whether the New Model Army would become the Royal Army, but because Parliament didn't want to lose control of the army, they settled on calling it the English Army. So ever since the 1600s in England, there have been laws preventing the King or Queen from keeping a standing army in peacetime without Parliamentary approval. This tradition carries on into the UK. Every year, Parliament passes a bill to authorize funding of the army, and it's called the British Army, even though the Sovereign is the commander-in-chief of the army.",
"Oliver Cromwell led a [rebellion]( URL_0 ) against the monarchy using the army. After the rebellion, the army never returned to being called \"royal\".",
"A connected fun-fact is that individual regiments have a royal charter, such as the King's Royal Rifle Corps, the Royal Green Jackets, Royal Engineers and so on. Thus many soldiers get the same distinction enjoyed by sailors and airmen of having \"Royal\" in the name of their employer.",
"There was a [thread]( URL_0 ) on this a few years ago"
],
"score": [
60,
18,
10,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War"
],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22rru1/eli5_why_isnt_the_british_army_called_the_royal/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6tvxog | If most of America sees jury duty as a drag or waste of time, how do courts ensure they wont slack off or not give full attention? | If I was convicted of a crime the last thing I would want is a bunch of tired and cranky working class people deciding my fate | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlnwjmc",
"dlnx95r",
"dlnxk8u",
"dlnwt44",
"dloppqg"
],
"text": [
"In my experience on multiple juries, people seem to do whatever they can to get out of it, and then take it extremely seriously when they are chosen. I think people grasp the gravity of deciding someone else's fate. Courts take plenty of breaks, and the attorneys are usually good at bringing some energy or requesting a recess if they see that they are losing the jury's attention.",
"In the US, attorneys on both sides are given the opportunity to select jurors through a process called Voir Dire. This includes questions of individual jurors by the judge and both sides, which can lead to strikes for cause (the juror cannot be fair and impartial in their decision) or hardship (they have an important scheduling conflict or some other reason they cannot serve as a juror). Each side also gets to strike a predetermined number of jurors without giving a reason - this is called a peremptory challenge. In this way, there is an assurance that each side has the ability to disqualify a juror for any number of reasons, one of which could be a perceived inability to take the process seriously. However, in my experience, most times attorneys use peremptory challenges to kick off people who have opinions or beliefs that they see as harmful to their case. Ultimately it should be up to the judge to make sure jurors are paying attention. I have had to, on a couple occasions, tell a judge that a juror was sleeping. For the most part, jurors take the process seriously. They understand that a lot can be at stake, whether that be someone's liberty, finances, or reputation. Although certainly most do not *want* to serve on a jury, once selected the vast majority pay attention. How they vote... that's a topic for another day. Source: am a criminal defense attorney",
"> If I was convicted of a crime the last thing I would want is a bunch of tired and cranky working class people deciding my fate Well it might be comforting to know that isn't how things work. There are basically two questions being asked in a court of law: Questions of fact and questions of law. The Judge handles the questions of law while the Jury handles questions of fact. In the case of a murder for example the jury only decides \"Did they do it?\" and the judge will actually decide the sentence. Unfortunately there isn't really any way to ensure people do a good job, in a jury or otherwise, but you can certainly make them go through the motions. The judge has broad authority in running their courtroom in order to administer the judicial process. If a juror decides they are tired and uninterested so they will just put in earbuds and doze off, the judge can hold them in contempt and issue them a fine or even jail time. \"Contempt of court\" is perhaps one of the most flexible tools possible within the legal system. Someone isn't \"charged\" with contempt you will note, they are *held* in contempt. The judge declares them guilty right there, no excuses or defense possible. The penalty can be fines or jail time *without limit*. You want a billion year jail sentence that is pretty much the only way. If course typically the most things come to is tossing someone in jail overnight and the penalties are subject to the review of higher courts.",
"The jury is being sworn in that they will compete their duty in a fair manner. It's akin to lying in court if you can prove someone isn't doing that. Also, you can choose/dismiss jury members during the Voir Dire after asking questions. That said, I was on a civil jury who just wanted to GTFO and returned an unfair verdict (in my opinion. they were deliberately ignoring evidence so that they could leave). I spoke to the attorneys involved and the judge, and signed an affidavit expressing my observations of how they acted in the jury room, and got the case thrown out (and settled, though it could have gone back to trial).",
"I just completed a thirty day term as a grand juror in my county circuit court. No judges or defendants there, just prosecutors and witnesses, and we were charged with deciding if there was enough evidence to send the person on to a trial. When we did, we issued a document called an \"indictment\" (pronounced in-dite'-ment). All seven of us took the responsibility very seriously. Unlike other jurors, grand jurors can question witnesses. It was a very interesting experience. There was never a problem of the type you're proposing."
],
"score": [
96,
21,
9,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6twz00 | Why was it decided to call the "Happiest Place on Earth" Disney World in Florida and Disneyland in California? | Asking for a friend... | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlopm4l"
],
"text": [
"Disneyland in California was the only park Walt Disney ever stepped foot in. He named it and designed it. Walt Disney World in Florida was mainly executed by Roy Disney, Walt's brother, after his passing. It was originally supposed to be titled Disney WORLD rather than land to emphasize the size difference, since the Florida park is exponentially larger than the California one. After Walt passed, Roy added the \"Walt\" to Walt Disney World to honor his brother. ETA: Disney World is also built in such a way that it is \"set apart\" from the rest of the city- hence it is its own little \"world\". One of the things that bothered Walt Disney most about Disneyland was that the Anaheim skyline encroached upon the park and he didn't like the outside world being visible to his guests. By the time Disney World came along, the company had more money to buy up huge chunks of land in Florida (land was cheap because back then central Florida was mostly swampland), so they could afford to make sure that never happened to Disney World. As far as the tag line distinction, I honestly couldn't tell you. I imagine it's more of the fact that Disneyland was already that happiest place on Earth, and Disney didn't want to cheapen or devalue it by creating a second one. They're very much viewed by the company and fans as two separate entities, not merely copies of one another."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6txj1s | Why are polka dots called "polka" dots? Is the reason related to polka music at all? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dloaa30"
],
"text": [
"Yes, at the time this design was being promoted, the polka was a popular trend, so the marketers of this fabric reused the name -- just the sort of thing that still happens today."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6txj2l | How does India simultaneously have one of the world's most advanced technological meccas yet also has what looks like one of the world's unhealthiest civilians? | Apologizes if the title sounds way more aggressive or dumb than I intended. I saw the news that water in places like the Kasadi River has gotten to the point beyond human consumption. Not to mention how often I see mutations, malformations, and just general weirdness out of India. In the exact same light, I see India as a technological haven. Advancements, inventions, innovations... Indian scientists and engineers seem to be among the brightest minds in the world (and the biggest collection of those minds, coming from an uneducated standby). | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dloakqw",
"dloaj5q",
"dloa8a9"
],
"text": [
"We're talking *billions* of people. Let's look at the US, which is also a technological mecca and home to millions of people so fat their heart stops. We still have millions of poor people, homeless people, etc. Now imagine all those problems multiplied by 4.",
"India has a population of 1.3 billion people, about 1 in 7 humans that exist live in india right now. It's also the 7th biggest countries on earth. It has enough people and enough space to be both things. I've been to india and both places are real. There is areas where it's rotting animal corpses and drinking tea made out of water they scoop out of literal sewer pipes. But then other places it's just office buildings and people wearing suits and eating lunch at burger king (although it's mutton burgers instead of beef). Lots of countries are big enough to be a few things at once.",
"Income inequality. While a small minority of Indians lives a middle-class professional life, a majority live in poverty, many of these in extreme poverty."
],
"score": [
13,
11,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6txs1k | What is "White Culture"? | I have read several comments in condemnation of "White Culture" and "White Supremacy". I am opposed to white supremacy. I am White but I have never defined my culture by my race. Do I as a white person have a "White Culture"? How might that be different then how White Supremacist define "White Culture"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dloekdo",
"dloduaw"
],
"text": [
"Well there is the Irish, Dutch, French, Scottish, Russian, Scandinavian, English, Welch, Spanish, Italian..... etc. You are going to have to be more specific.",
"It's mostly European culture, and more recently American culture. There have been many great accomplishments made by Europeans and some made by Americans. There have been great risks taken, long voyages undertaken into the unknown, crazy inventions made which revolutionized the world. It's natural to feel some pride for those accomplishments, but there are people who take it too far and start to think of themselves as better than other cultures. That is when it turns into white supremacy."
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6txwcs | Why people nowadays have more anxiety and stress problems than older generations? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dloduag",
"dloe5aq",
"dloi4gu"
],
"text": [
"More competitive job market, less pay, higher housing prices, higher cost of education, less family support. More expensive to thrive, less money to do so.",
"Lack of having to deal with hardships when they are younger. People try to avoid hardship and [discomfort]( URL_0 ) as much as possible. When they encounter problems they can't avoid, it creates a lot of stress and anxiety because they don't have the proper coping mechanisms.",
"I can't disagree with any of the other answers so far, but would like to add our access to information. We are the most informed of any group of people in history. We watch history being made in real time. We have hundreds of people giving us information from so many sources like TV, social media, the internet new sites, etc. Being inundated with information allows us to focus on that info, stew on it, stress over it. Furthermore, I don't like the idea of wealth being distributed improperly as we are wealthier now than we've ever been. Though I would say that corporations are fighting harder and driving their employees harder for every dollar. Life is a faster pace, IMO, than ever before. Finally, I kind of second what the other poster said; we don't have to face hardship today like generations before us. My grandparents each had at least one sibling die in childhood from illness, disease or disaster. Thankfully, VERY thankfully, we are healthier and safer than previous generations. I don't know of very many families that have lost children, at least not the way they seem to have 50-100 years ago. That does have kind of make us less callous and hardened to deal with struggles and grief so that when hard times do hit it hits harder. I think back to my grandparents who were born during or shortly after WW1, lived through WW2, just a few short years later had the conflict in Korea, and Vietnam. As shitty as the wars and terrorism we've experienced in the past 20 years is it really doesn't compare to the political state of the world back then. The end result is, as I see it, we aren't as groomed and conditioned to deal with hardships as they come, hence the stress gets to us more. I speak as a person who has a diagnosis of PTSD and deal pretty regularly with shitty anxiety. I fully admit that I'm pretty weak in that way."
],
"score": [
7,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-romance-work/201412/why-riding-the-wave-discomfort-is-good-you"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6txzv1 | Why is promoting Nazism or displaying Nazi symbols not illegal in Canada and the US, like it is in Germany? | Does it not constitute incitement? And if not, how/when was this determined? Also, I know it's really two questions, but I'm interested in both jurisdictions | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dloeedh",
"dloeg3i",
"dloebq0"
],
"text": [
"Not sure about Canada, but in the US speech is only curtailed if it represents an imminent threat or incitement to imminent violence. Nazism, as reprehensible as it is, can be peaceably advocated for without said imminent threats of violence; hence, the government can't withhold free speech rights from them. The key issues here are that the First Amendment **explicitly** protects the following things; > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; **or abridging the freedom of speech**, or of the press; or the **right of the people peaceably to assemble**, and to **petition the Government for a redress of grievances.** The Nazis and white nationalists are allowed to speak, so long as they do so peaceably. The counter to this is that we explicitly start reneging of Free Speech laws, but that opens a Pandora's box of bad ideas (in particular, if you give the Government the power to abridge any form of speech, then you must also be okay with the Government having that power when people like Trump are in the White House). Furthermore, [things like this aren't acceptable]( URL_0 ) within the American concept of Free Speech, and honestly are far more disturbing to me than the fact that Nazis exist.",
"Displaying the symbols does not constitute incitement. At least in the US, things like that are protected under the 1st amendment as \"free speech\". There's a difference between standing on the street corner and saying \"I HATE BLACK PEOPLE! JEWS ARE THE DEVIL!\" versus saying \"HEY YALL, LET'S GO DOWNTOWN AND BEAT UP A BUNCH OF BLACK FOLK! WHO'S WITH ME?\". The first is 1st amendment free speech. The second is incitement.",
"The United States has the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights guaranteeing the liberty of political statements. The legal test of incitement is very rigorous and strict in the US, and the political philosophy is that changing that would represent a surrender to the ideas being restricted. Germany, however, bans the symbols because it already failed the original experiment with more tolerant free speech in the Weimar Republic. Those circumstances gave the Nazis leeway to preach destruction on others while demanding protection for themselves, but for whatever reason that same freedom in the 1930s United States did not lead to their gaining political power here."
],
"score": [
8,
7,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/09/nazi-pug-man-arrested-after-teaching-girlfriends-dog-to-perform/"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6tyiae | how does an animated character's face look the same from shot to shot, scene to scene? Does the eye not notice minor difference, tracing, that damn good freehand? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlojo7j"
],
"text": [
"Your are correct about the frame rate. At 24 or 30 frames/second the eye does not notice each minor inconsistency. It's also because animators are very talented. In the old hand-drawn cartoon days, the artists would overlay the cell they are drawing with the previous finished cell. They quickly flip back and forth between the cells over and over so that there is always a reference to work from. It helps when you are very practiced at drawing the same character 6,000 times in one 4 minute cartoon."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6tyolp | Why does a significant portion of words from the English language start with the letter "S"? | I noticed this phenomenon when I was leisurely browsing through a dictionary with the edge of pages displaying the densities of words that start with each letter of the alphabet. (Hope I followed all the protocols correctly, I'm new here) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlonqe4"
],
"text": [
"The modern english language is very different from it's original form. Only about 35% of the words we use today are actually original english (anglo-saxon). The rest of the words that are now modern english come directly from French, Latin, Greek, and Norse. Historically there were many similar sounds to an \"S\" in all of these languages yet slightly different. Anything from what we would call an \"S\" or a \"SH\" or \"TH\" or a \"C\" and the list goes on and on. All of these similar yet different sounds evolved over hundreds of years and were simplified into what we now just call one S sound. Spelling has also dramatically evolved. All the words that used to be represented with thier own unique letter combinations are simply now just a plain old \"S\" to us."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6tywgv | Why are there such weird terms for groups of birds (e.g., murder of crows, unkindness of ravens)? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlomkd0",
"dlomdvx"
],
"text": [
"You are talking about the \"Terms of Venery.\" It comes from the Late Middle Ages and English hunting. The Book of Saint Albans, printed in 1486, was the first to compile them. Birds are not the only weird ones. Some weird ones: Grist of bees. Sounder of boars. Clowder of cats. Husk of hares. Zeal of zebras. Many of these terms came about from folk tales and superstitions, or some just describe the animals in a singular word. For instance, a bloat of hippos. Murder of crows most likely came for the superstition that they are omens of death. [Full list]( URL_0 ) of Terms of Venery. Have fun.",
"URL_0 It's not just birds. Aristocratic British hunters came up with these terms as a way to show appreciation for groups of animals."
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_terms_of_venery,_by_animal"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rkrGwI4rZA"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6tz1tg | For decades, people have argued about whether the Confederate flag is a symbol of slavery or states' rights. Why does everyone on both sides seem to overlook the fact that it was a symbol of armed rebellion against the rightful government? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlonsso",
"dlooj3r",
"dlosnsc"
],
"text": [
"Because both sides were the rightful governments. The Union believed that secession was unlawful and unconstitutional. The Confederacy believed that secession was an innate right held by the State. Both were equally correct in their interpretations of the constitution as it was written then. The Union's opinion only won out because they physically won the war.",
"Not an ELI5 question, but...the flag was brought back into use in the 1940s and 1950s as a symbol of support for segregationist policies. It was essentially forgotten before that point. It was brought back with the Dixiecrats, and then got incorporated into lots of southern state flags. It was explicitly adopted as a symbol of rebellion against federal government policies against segregation. So if told \"doesn't this mean rebellion against America?\" They would have said \"yes, we stand against the federal government policies of integration, and we stand for segregation!\"",
"Because the United States were founded over an armed rebellion against a rightful government. It's a given that they rebelled, but rebellion is thought of somewhat romantically if it's perceived as justified."
],
"score": [
13,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6u0khh | why people call cities in different countries by different names e.g. London - > Londres | Surely it's just London? Or Roma? Or Lisboa? Why the different names? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlp0ttk",
"dlp3noq",
"dlp1686"
],
"text": [
"Firstly, the names go back so far that they have evolved in both languages since first usage. London used to be Londinium or Lundinium, and was commonly called Lundin or Londin prior to becoming London. The first usage of place names was often by mariners, who would convey the name verbally. Londres in French sounds similar to how the English said Lundin. That's the main theory. Other places you get different spellings to accommodate the common phonetic spelling in various languages. Consider Den Haag / The Hague / La Haya. Also, sometimes we alter a place name to make it conform more with our respective languages. Lisbon / Lisboa or Milan / Milano.",
"Names evolve and change and are impacted by things like different languages and different alphabets and even different pronunciations of the same alphabet in different languages. To give one example, I live in Dublin, in Ireland. The origins of the name are interesting. Dublin has city status since 988AD, so for 1029 years now. What became Dublin originally started out as a settlement near a water source. The original name was in the Irish language and was Dubh Linn, meaning black pool, a reference to that water source. To look at it as an English speaker Dubh Linn and Dublin have obvious similarities. The Irish version is actually pronounced like Dove Ling. When the British took over Ireland and started to anglicise names, it became Dublin. All around Ireland there are placenames that changed to English. Some are mispronunciations, some are translations of the Irish name and in some cases the name is completely new. Interestingly enough, the name in the Irish language now used for Dublin is not Dubh Linn, but Baile Átha Cliath, pronounced Bol ya awha clee-a. That was the name of another settlement close to Dubh Linn. Its name translated roughly to the place at the crossing of the hurdle ford. The two settlements grew, merged and eventually became what is now modern Dublin, while retaining both names. Like in Baile Átha Cliath, the word \"Baile\" appears in many Irish placenames. It means town or place and in the Irish language is pronounced like Bol-ya. When names were anglicised, Baile became Bally, which again to an English speaker is a reasonable change. So if you see a place starting with Bally in Ireland, it means the town of... or the place of... somewhere. Other prefixes are common, like Kil or Kill, coming from Cill meaning church; Dun coming from Dún, meaning fort; Knock coming from Cnoc, meaning hill. There are many other similar examples. So that shows you in just one country how names can change. Outside of Ireland the name Dublin or something similar is used. Italians tend to have vowels at the end of their words, so for them it is Dublino for example.",
"1) Misheard/remembered: While today we can livechat someone in London standing next to a sign saying London, this was not always the case. Someone who traveled there from far away and told locals the name they might hear something slightly different, especially if there sound doesn't have the same sounds. Then these people, who might not have a written language yet, might slowly change the pronunciation from generation to generation until one writes it down and a spelling becomes standard 2) Grammatical: most nouns in languages decline (follow certain patterns) in predictable and set ways, so the city names will be changed to fit in this pattern. 3) Historical name/protest: Some places had original names in that language before they became territory of another place that changed the name, so some keep the original name either because they're used to it, or they are protesting the other country having that territory (see Enclaves and Exclaves) this was especially common in places that changed hands after the World Wars. 4) Transliteration: Some places have or had a different alphabet, so they couldn't use the same letters to spell out places, and then when transliterated back to the original alphabet there will be changes."
],
"score": [
21,
12,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6u0nja | How did the gesture of showing our palm become a salute? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlp023t"
],
"text": [
"IIRC it goes back to medieval times where a friendly knight would raise his face cover to reveal his identity. This action would result in his palm facing forward. I've also heard that this is where military salutes also originated"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6u0njo | Why do Australian (most countries) Passports Have english and french text in them? | At Least in my case my passport has a page with english writing then the next is in french, as well as the main page having dual french/english labels. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlp09v4"
],
"text": [
"The word Passport is French. Historically, French has been the language of diplomacy. > In 1920, an international conference on passports and through tickets held by the League of Nations recommended that passports be issued in French, historically the language of diplomacy, and one other language.[61] Currently, the ICAO recommends that passports be issued in English and French, or in the national language of the issuing country and in either English or French. Many European countries use their national language, along with English and French. Most passports have the native language, along with English and French."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6u0z21 | Why in some countries people just wipe but in some countries they use a bidet and wipe? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlp2l0q",
"dlpc6ri",
"dlp63ig",
"dlp28dz",
"dlpi6r6",
"dlpbchj",
"dlp6sry",
"dlp2a4y",
"dlpagcj",
"dlp5j2o",
"dlp9mgo",
"dlpa0qn",
"dlp4hky",
"dlpgqdj",
"dlp9c32",
"dlp64eb",
"dlphjng",
"dlp787c",
"dlpgqc8",
"dlpbcje",
"dlp97j1",
"dlpaa8j",
"dlperll",
"dlp941i",
"dlphsrq",
"dlpo6ng",
"dlpkuv6",
"dlpmfew",
"dlpjaz3",
"dlpq5pj",
"dlppryn",
"dlpmkae",
"dlpluy0",
"dlppf3y",
"dlppzoa",
"dlpp3vz"
],
"text": [
"There's a large number of contributors. Origin point and time of the bidet. They were invented in the 17th century in Europe, and thus they would have spread to regional areas as a custom. Generally when people get used to a bidet (particularly one with warm water), they'll stick with it if it's possible and convenient. Cultural momentum. If all the houses in a country have bidets rather than plain toilets, newly built houses will usually have bidets rather than toilets. It's the way things were done, so it's the way things will be done. And some countries even go to the point of requiring it by law. Attachment to cleanliness. In the same way there are massive differences in how the process of \"bathing\" happen, there are cultural differences in how a person's toilet is approached. Some cultures place a lot more importance and ceremony on acts of personal toiletry like washing and bathing so, like in Japan, they'll lean toward using bidets. Availability of toilet paper. Here in Canada bidets really haven't caught on because wood and paper are so available and cheap. In other cultures where there's not such a massively available supply, there's a bit more of a preference to save paper by using a bidet. Aging population. Bidets make clean-up easier and they'll likely become more popular as we have more gray haired people with mobility issues.",
"The idea of using a bidet spray to cultures that aren't used to it is disgusting as they will imagine getting everything wet, messy, and dirty. Whilst using toilet paper alone to cultures/people who are already using bidets will seem equally disgusting because they will never seem properly cleaned. AFAIK Muslims have a rule of eating only with their right hand as their left hand is presumably used for cleaning. It's probably that countries more exposed to Islam will tend to wash in addition to wiping. Hopefully one day we will all adopt the [standards]( URL_0 ) of Japanese washlets. EDIT: To include explanations and remove random commentary as I realised this is ELI5.",
"I'm in America and we use TP almost exclusively, only very fancy places/people have bidets. In short, they (I'm going to assume it stems from the lumber industry because paper) mass produce toilet paper because it's cheap and we have to keep going back to buy more. They want our money. Bidets are so much better, economically and environmentally. They should really be the standard.",
"Just cultural anomalies. I live in England, and we bought a house recently which came with a bidet. This is unusual in the UK, and we don't use the bidet...we've discussed taking it out when we remodel the bathroom in a couple years, making room for a larger bath, perhaps. # However, I can objectively see why a bidet would be more desirable, especially if that's what you're used to. If you simply use toilet paper, there will undoubtedly be at least a trace amount of your faecal matter remaining. Realistically, if you're wiping \"until the paper comes away clean\", this should be a negligible amount and it will be 'contained' within the buttocks. It's not as though you 'spread it around'. Also, with daily showering, any sane person will be washing the area between their buttocks with soap and water anyway. # **Edit:** This thread has inspired me. May try my bidet out for the first time.",
"> The President of the United States, the big ministers of state, the great bishops and shmishops and big shots everywhere, down to the lowest factory worker with all his fierce pride, movie stars, executives and great engineers and presidents of law firms and advertising firms with silk shirts and neckties and great expensive traveling cases in which they place these various expensive English imported hair brushes and shaving gear and pomades and perfumes are all walking around with dirty azzoles! All you gotta do is simply wash yourself with soap and water! it hasnt occurred to anybody in America at all! it's one of the funniest things I've ever heard of! -- Jack Kerouac, *Big Sur* In all seriousness though, I'm in the UK and it's very rare to see a bidet here. Whenever I've encountered one abroad I have been too unsure about the logistics of it to even attempt to use it. I think I have only ever seen them in Italy and maybe Spain? And in all cases it's been a separate unit like [this]( URL_1 ), rather than an integrated one like [this]( URL_0 ). In the case of the separate unit, what do you do? Like turn the tap on and position your arsehole so that the water sprays it? Wet your hand then use your wet hand to wipe your arse? Wet toilet paper then use that to wipe? I honestly don't even know which way you face when you use it. And if you have an integrated one, how do you avoid shitting on the nozzle? Is it retractable? If you have explosive diarrhoea then surely the bidet mechanism has all manner of nooks and crannies in it that you will never be able to clean all the shit out of properly? To someone who is unfamiliar with them it all seems extremely confusing.",
"To my American brothers and sisters if you got shit on your arm would you wipe it off or clean it with water and wipe it? I'm a American and I bought a bidet on Amazon after using it at a friends house. In American men want to seem masculine and they wanna seem not \"gay\". Most American men then see water going up your ass as gay or weird. They also don't understand how it could be cleaner. I'm a guy who owns a bidet. [Astor Non-Electric Mechanical Bidet Toilet]( URL_0 ) Buy this for 24 bucks and you'll never go back plus it takes us a year to use a big package of toilet paper now.",
"Some countries sewer systems aren't built to take toilet paper. I think in parts of Brazil tp has to go in a bin beside the toilet and not flushed",
"It's a cultural thing. I can't imagine how anyone can feel clean just by wiping. When I can only use paper (like when I'm at my job) I feel gross for the rest of the day until I get home and wash properly.",
"If you don't use a bidet and only using toilet paper (no water) it's like trying to wipe chocolate off your hands with a dry paper towel. It's NEVER truly CLEAN. I'm in America and got a bidet seat that replaces the toilet seat ($200) and I've been so happy. Saves on toilet paper too (usually just 1 wipe needed and it's always clean).",
"In some countries/regions, bathrooms used to be placed outside the house (the most common word for bathroom in my language literally translates to \"bath house\") and on cold days water would be too cold and would be very uncomfortable to use.",
"To answer your question, I believe it's a cultural thing. In my country (Argentina) all houses have bidets (the normal kind, not your awesome kind) and about half the population uses them (and defend them to the death) and the other half doesn't. From what I've heard you turkish people are experts in bidets, everyone I know that visits your country praises the design of the in-toilet bidets you guys have. Picture for those who don't know them: URL_0",
"If you have an older house without a bidget in the Philippines, you use a cup with handle (or tabo). Toilet papers are expensive here. And like others from other countries said, it's a cultural thing.",
"in Islam, cleaning up with water is required, so bidets are basically a very convenient way to accomplish that.",
"I'm surprised nobody mentioned humidity. I feel like humidity plays a bigger role. Try using tp in hot humid countries like Malaysia/ Indonesia. You get swampy ass every time.",
"Im Australian. Never seen one in my life, not even in fancy hotels. Though i guess they do exist in some places to please foreigners . Im guessing its because we're the driest country on earth and have to conserve water.",
"How do you even use a bidet exactly?",
"I've used an Iranian toilet, the \"bidet\" is a hose on the wall, and it is very cleansing. For it to work optimally, however, you have to squat over a hole, which is pretty difficult to do for a couple minutes at a time for someone who isn't used to it. But I can tell you I've had poop bits fall near or on that hose. So there may be a valid concern over which method, bidet or toilet paper, is more sanitary in a public setting.",
"Yes it does smudge sometimes and it basically makes me uncomfortable for the rest of the day. :(",
"If you pick up your dogs poop with bare hand and wipe the hand with TP, would you consider your hands clean? It's just a cultural thing even we know dry TP would not be as clean as bidet and most people just don't give a shit.",
"Different cultures have different standards of hygiene, often for historical reasons. In Turkey, you don't wear shoes indoors either. I live in the UK, so my washing machine is in the kitchen and I shit in the same room as I take a shower. Completely backwards, but that's just the way it is here.",
"Maybe it's just me (and the water pressure I've seen in bidets in the countries I've lived in) but for someone with - ahem - destructive shits, I don't see how they'd work. Like, I'd still *have* to wipe... only it's wetter now. Disclaimer: I've never used a bidet, so if my assumption is WAY off, that's why.",
"In the Philippines they use a dipper to collect water with and use the water to clean orifices.",
"Due to being a Mr. Poopy Butthole, I use some toilet paper bundled up and wipe with that. If that fat stack doesn't clean the fudge machine, then I resort to wetting a paper towel and wiping with that. This is all if baby wipes are not already in the restroom. Baby wipes are a life changer.",
"When I was on holiday in Turkey a few years back, another reason we were told is that the sewer system was too small a bore and would clog easily, so they advised using the bidet, drying with toilet paper, which should then go in the bin, rather than down the toilet. Since you were only drying a clean bum hole, they toilet paper wouldn't stink. Was never sure why a bit of toilet paper could clog a sewer, but my massive turds wouldn't...",
"In my city in India, we use the bidet first to clean and then the toilet paper after to dry it up.",
"You forgot to add in that a good portion of the world still uses their left hand to wipe, which is where I would speculate that a large number of superstitions came about for southpaws being considered \"*unclean*\" and why in cultures that traditionally eat with their hands you only use the right.",
"I lived in India for a couple months. I also have traveled much of South East Asia. Only in Italy did I experience a totally separate fixture called a bidet, most of India and Asia have a hand bidet, which is a sprayer on the side of the toilet, kind of like what you see on a kitchen sink. I missed this so much when I came back to the states, I actually bought one.",
"If you use a bidet, how do you dry off afterwards? You've got a wet bum, then what? Towel? TP?",
"I think most of the bidet, washing with water and soap, users use paper first, never go directly hand on poo.",
"If I could piggy back... Why in some countries do they just wipe with *their hand*? It seems like I would always naturally use something to wipe even if it was just a leaf or something. I wouldn't want poop on my hand. .... Also, I am from a culture that just wipes, and the bidet is clearly superior. I'm not sure why we don't use them.",
"I live in the US and own a bidet which is always a great convo starter when people come over. The topic comes up of how gross it must be to use a bidet to which my response is \"if you got shit anywhere else on your body, would wiping it with a paper towel suffice or would you also use water?\" It just comes down to most western countries are hush hush about anything related to your ass.",
"Maybe I'm late here....but I am American and I shower sometimes 3 times a day (in the summer). I think we're in the bath/shower more often than some of our brethren across the world. Maybe this has something to do with it?",
"If you go to a country where it's 30-40 degrees celcius everywhere (bad AC) you'll understand. The ass sweat make wiping normally quite a pain in the ass (heh). When it's all moist back there a bidet is very nice to get the poo away.",
"I grew up in the USA just wiping. Went to Japan, experienced the joy of a Toto Toilet, and I gotta say, we're doing it wrong over here in the States. I will also go so far as to say that even [Japanese traditional squat toilets]( URL_0 ) are better than our Western John Crappers. Squat toilets, especially public ones are awesome because you don't need to touch anything (no seat) and you are shitting in a more natural position (squatting) which is better for your cornhole and colon in general.",
"In Bali they have a hose near the toilet and the washrooms are soaked water all the time. No toilet paper. Some Asian countries you have to buy toilet paper in the vending machine. Some European countries you have to pay to use the washroom. Canada & United States is mandatory to have a washroom when serving food. In Sydney some places didn't even have toilets (Starbucks, McDonalds) also walked two blocks away from restaurant as owner gave me his condo keys to use washroom. I travel with tissues because every culture is different.",
"It seems like people from bidet-using countries think that people from non-bidet-using countries are just walking around with shitty asses, and equally that people from non-bidet-using countries think that people from bidet-using countries are walking around with pristine assholes. We're all over generalizing. When you use toilet paper, you don't wipe once and then shrug, say 'good enough', and pull up your pants. You keep at it 'til the job is done. If we were to compare speed and efficiency, there's no question the bidet would come out ahead, but the actual cleanliness of the asshole in question comes ultimately down to the diligence and fastidiousness of the owner."
],
"score": [
484,
418,
135,
124,
103,
68,
40,
38,
26,
22,
19,
18,
15,
14,
14,
13,
11,
10,
8,
8,
8,
7,
6,
6,
5,
5,
5,
4,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/17/14306464/japanese-toilet-control-icons-meaning-standard"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/JapaneseToiletBidet.jpg",
"https://www.villeroy-boch.hu/fileadmin/upload/facelift2014/Bad_und_Wellness/Produktkategorie/Bidets/bidet-montage-omnia.jpg"
],
[
"www.amazon.com/dp/B003TPGPUW/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_awdb_ejfLzb2TJ40GQ"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vIugBNFH0pw/maxresdefault.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://sociorocketnewsen.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/wtf-squat-6.jpg"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6u1lvh | Why do production companies tell us about movie release dates 2 or 3 years before they are even set to come out in theatres? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlpbeoe",
"dlp63r3",
"dlp61wt",
"dlp8808",
"dlp7vkj"
],
"text": [
"They’re also announcing it for other studios. Disney and Warner Brothers don’t want to both plan one of their big movies for the same weekend. Sales for both would suffer as a result. Disney is the reigning king of the box office right now (based on annual totals), and they’re basically calling dibs on the best calendar dates years in advance. Other studios can then work around that calendar.",
"I have noticed a trend lately with Disney in regards to its Marvel that they release a full schedule that is years in the making. I think it's a smart way to excite their own fan base. It gets them talking and who knows, maybe there are people who work for the production company taking notes on what the word on the street is.",
"To slowly build up the hype. They don't forget about its existence until a week before - they release news articles (\"actor X was cast for the role of Y\", \"movie just started filming\", \"movie entered post production phase\" etc.), they release promotional materials such as posters and trailers, and as the movie's release date comes closer the promotions become more and more aggressive.",
"In addition to what other people have said, it's the same reason candidates during election season have all those signs everywhere. It starts establishing recognition, which means when you inevitably hear it again your brain recognizes it as familiar, and due to the nature of our brain, therefore good. Studies have shown that people who haven't researched candidates are more likely to vote for the name they recognize. It's more likely you're going to see a movie you've heard about, even if you don't know anything about it.",
"These companies will be looking for investors to provide the money for production, and announcing a release date is one way of saying \"we're serious, give us money\"."
],
"score": [
188,
51,
29,
9,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6u29v9 | Why are some songs so popular on other continents long before any radio here starts playing them (even if those artists are from this country)? How is it determined which songs get played on the radio? | if they go by charts, doesn't radio play help make songs popular and vice versa? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlpe7ot",
"dlpbsbs"
],
"text": [
"To answer each question in a word: 1) Luck 2) Corruption I think the corruption is less prevalent in the US music industry, but here in Europe where (for my sins) I have some level of involvement in the music industry, money is what gets radio plays. This could be via expensive PR companies or via radio \"pluggers.\" -- It's much less prevalent in the indie/niche parts of the industry, but for mainstream music, that's more-or-less the lay of the land.",
"It's merely a cultural thing or, like in many cases, a snowball effect of increasing popularity in different countries. A great example of this is Psy's gangnam style in the US, a Korean song. Songs that are put on mainstream radio networks are often put there by radio promotion companies that get paid by labels to try to get songs on the radio. In the end, it is up to the radio station to play what they desire and a popular song or cultural phenomenon is likely to get on the radio."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6u2jev | why on maps showing European demographic data Switzerland usually always shows no data. | Do they even exist? What do they have to hide? Should I be afraid? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlpe0o9"
],
"text": [
"Is it *just* Switzerland that doesn't have data, or are there some others? It's possible the sources you're looking at are for the EU, and Switzerland isn't in the EU. Otherwise if it includes countries like Norway and Iceland, but not Switzerland, it could possibly be showing countries in the EEA, which Switzerland is technically not in. But if it has data for pretty much every country in Europe, including non-EU, non-EEA countries like Serbia or Ukraine then I have no idea."
],
"score": [
9
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6u2me2 | Why is someone cracking their knuckles/neck viewed as intimidating? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlpekt7",
"dlpj1w7",
"dlpiq07"
],
"text": [
"I really don't think there is much science behind it or a link to an evolutionary trait in tribal times, and I have never heard or seen someone do this in real life. It is probably a trait that has been applied to television and repeated several times, giving people that impression. The only practical use it would have would be loosening the joints in your knuckles to make hitting and punching better, but I don't think that sensation will actually impact the punch at all. Not cracking your knuckles could also cause you to crack them mid fight, which could be somewhat painful. It just evolved over time through tv and implies that someone is going to need to use their fists and is preparing to do so.",
"It's those motions are associated with preparing to fight. They're not so accurate now a days but it's a hold over from the past I believe. It's why cocking a gun is considered intimidating. Because that's preparation to fire it. Cracking your joints is supposed to prepare you for a brawl and it lets the other guy know you're prepping for a brawl.",
"Pretty sure Bruce Lee started this in popular culture, and it's spread in media from there."
],
"score": [
14,
9,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6u3dts | What does "identity politics" mean? | When groups disparagingly describe other groups as "using identity politics", what do they mean? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlpox7u",
"dlppb0k"
],
"text": [
"Identity politics refers to political views that are based on or reflect an individual's identification with some sort of group. The group could be representative of race, gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, nationality, geographic location, job category, or any other shared identity that people might organize themselves around. Identity politics are usually a response to some sort of oppression, discrimination, or marginalization of the group in question. For example, if Pepsi drinkers (who, as is probably obvious, are evil incarnate) were roaming the streets with baseball bats beating up Coca-Cola drinkers, and the Coca-Cola drinkers came together as the \"[Can't Beat The Real Thing]( URL_1 ) Coalition\" to protest the abuse by [Pepsi-drinking fascist sympathizers]( URL_0 ) and lobby the government for their rights and freedoms as Coke drinkers, then you might say the Coke drinkers are practicing identity politics.",
"This term is usually used as a criticism of the left more than of the right. It's talking about how people define themselves and their views in terms of the group they belong to. For example, one might say, \"As an Asian-American, I find the movie Ghost in the Shell to be offensive.\" (Not sure if that's a thing. I just kind of pulled that example out of my ass.) Having a unique perspective because of your identity and how that has shaped your experiences is fine. I think where it's often criticized is when it's used as a weapon against people outside of the group. For example, in the above example, a non-Asian might be criticized as being insensitive for saying they kind of liked Ghost in the Shell. Or even more counter-productively, they could be criticized for agreeing with the opinion since they're not a member of the group. Last but not least, there's a lot of pressure for members of that group to adopt the official position of the group. (In this example, an Asian-American would have a hard time admitting that they liked the movie.) The net result is that you start to get pockets of people who are defining themselves into narrower and narrower categories and essentially looking for offenses against their group as a way of showing how much worse their group has it than someone else. (The more trivial offenses are disparagingly referred to as microtransgressions.) I definitely put my own politics firmly on the left (then again, to be left of the Republican party these days is not hard!), but I do think the overuse of identity politics makes it more difficult for the left to come together and unite against real offenses. In a strange way, I'm hoping that one silver lining coming out of Charlottesville is that all of us on the left will recognize that we have a common enemy - one that is very real and one that we all have to unite against."
],
"score": [
18,
10
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/65ph52/kendall_jenner_giving_hitler_a_pepsi_to_end_ww2/",
"http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160505174531-18-coca-cola-anniversary-super-169.jpg"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6u3edv | Why are people suddenly removing Confederate memorials? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlplo7t",
"dlpldhj",
"dlpmusr",
"dlplkne"
],
"text": [
"I think the purpose of removing them is to show a distinct lack of respect for what those monuments stood/stand for. The argument is that we shouldn't be venerating/respecting individuals that fought for a side that largely (though not exclusively) supported the practice of slavery and were not exactly that into equal rights. I think its odd that they were put up in the first place. Arguing against them being taken down is like framing a \"colored people only\" sign. Sure its historical, and significant in its own way, but maybe it shouldn't be hung up in a public park. People feel upset at the large push to protect a statue of someone who literally fought for the right to deny human rights to a good chunk of the population. To those inevitable responses about causes of the civil war, you don't get to nitpick reasons, you get to support the whole cause. Like you don't get to talk about Hitlers pretty successful economic push post WW1 and ignore all the brutal murdering of people because of their ethnicity. (yes that is a pre-emptive godwins law)",
"The people being memorialized are held in low regard because: 1) they were in a war **against** the US government, and 2) they were in the war because they **wanted to be able to legally enslave people**. These are not their tombs, they are just statues to celebrate them.",
"The memorials have become the exact opposite of what leaders like Lee wanted, symbols against the Union. Lee post war actually spent a large amount of time trying to keep the South's incorporation back into the US as smooth as possible. If they wanted to they could have told the Southerners to head to the hills and drag the war out even longer. Instead most of them accepted defeat and refused to act as martyrs. Flash foreward 50 years and most of these leaders are dead. Southern groups ranging from vets to KKK set up monuments to these men for thr exact reasons they didn't want to be symbols in the first place. I beleive many of these monuments and memorials should go into museums as artifacts and peices to show the time period. But out of respect for the men who never wanted them and not to give groups like the Klan and other unsavory groups rallying points.",
"First off, these are just statues and not gravestones/grave markets. And technically, they are memorials for traitors who decided to break apart from the United State in order to keep owning slaves... so fuck 'em. The real question should be is why they were built to begin with and why they've been allowed to remain for so long."
],
"score": [
18,
11,
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6u3u56 | Why do Americans celebrate Columbus Day despite Columbus never setting foot in their country? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlpp94y",
"dlpqoq3",
"dlpucxa",
"dlpov6i"
],
"text": [
"Columbus is often credited with establishing European contact with the Americas as a whole, even though he didn't discover the region or set foot in what is now the USA. Columbus Day was largely pushed on Americans by Catholics (and some protestants) who recognize Columbus as a key figure in the worldwide spread of Christianity. He is also celebrated by Italian-Americans of which there are many. Generally, Americans \"celebrating Columbus Day\" just means they take the day off. People don't really celebrate Columbus outside of specific communities which are largely Catholic and/or Italian. Some states don't even officially recognize Columbus day.",
"Italian-Americans at the turn of of the century were heavily discriminated against, much like other immigrants today. Swarthy, womanizing, loud, dirty, and criminal they would say. Still to this day Italian-Americans are stereotyped as goomba mafiosos, or tan loud mouthed goons. They weren't considered \"white\" like northern Europeans. Plus they were Catholics, under the yolk of a foreign influence of great power and money, the Pope in Rome. Christopher Columbus being Italian and instrumental in the discovery of the new world was a safe icon for them to take racial pride in. The Knight of Columbus, the social club, takes their name from this idea. A fraternal order of Catholics, heavily Italian, to promote their identities.",
"We also didn't start celebrating it until like the 30s... And even when I was in school in the 90s we were already doing projects like, \"Should Columbus be considered a hero for discovering new land for Europe to explore, or a villain who introduced disease that wiped out indigenous people?\" And many indigenous groups have been pushing for \"Indigenous People's Day\" instead of Columbus Day.",
"He is considered the first European to find the Americas, which includes the US. It is also an Italian-American heritage celebration day in some parts of the country (Columbus was Italian). It's not a big holiday, though. Unless you live in a big Italian-American state (New York or New Jersey), you probably won't get the day off work."
],
"score": [
53,
13,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6u415z | Why is bargaining at markets expected and a normal part of life in many countries? Wouldn't sellers make more money if they stick to a price instead of changing it for every potential customer? | Bargaining and negotiating at the African and Asian markets seems like so much work when all you want is fresh food, for example. If I can afford the prices, why should I waste 20 minutes arguing to make it 20 cents cheapers? But then I feel like the seller may make it even cheaper for the next customer and I'm the one getting ripped off. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlpqk69"
],
"text": [
"Negotiating earns more than selling at a single price, because the single price is often very close to the lower end of the negotiating range to keep sales high. However, it costs the seller time (it also costs the buyer time, but the seller doesn't pay that cost). That means there's a tradeoff between selling time and profit that determines whether negotiating is better than charging a single price or not. The point at which one is better than the other depends heavily on how much money the negotiator can earn elsewhere. That's why even in high income nations, most cars are sold via individual negotiation (large transaction that few people do more than a few times in their life so giving a salesman a large portion of what they negotiated for the owner is still profitable) and in lower income nations negotiations can reach deep down into inexpensive goods (the seller's best alternative to not spending time negotiating isn't very lucrative)."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6u440k | What do nazi-oppressed groups have in common, and in what are they different? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlpr5u1"
],
"text": [
"Eugenics. The nazis believes they were the master race and everything else was subservient to them and thus not human."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6u4z50 | Why is insider trading considered unethical, and subsequently so illegal(in the U.S.A.)? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlpyil8",
"dlpyg68"
],
"text": [
"It's a form of securities fraud. Stock exchanges rely on the notion that everyone has the same information to consult when making decisions. If you have access to information that others do not, you can use that information to manipulate prices. Because so much wealth is tied up in the stock market, securities regulation is very important to protect all of that wealth. I have zero idea why your question implies that the USA is the only country with securities regulation",
"If insiders were allowed to cheat like that, then they would make more money and other investors would make less. Taken to the extreme, and we know Wall Street likes to do that, the banking insiders make all the money and nobody else gets any."
],
"score": [
10,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6u5xt7 | Why does the English language have a word for an equilateral rectangle (square), but not a specific word for an equilateral triangle? | Perhaps the answer is as simple as, "That's just how it worked out," but I'm curious to know if anyone can provide an etymological explanation. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlq6kzc"
],
"text": [
"Etymonline has this interesting snippet: > **mid-13c.**, \"tool for measuring right angles, carpenter's square,\" from Old French esquire \"a square, squareness,\" from Vulgar Latin *exquadra, back-formation from *exquadrare \"to square,\" from Latin ex \"out\" (see ex-) + quadrare \"make square, set in order, complete,\" from quadrus \"a square\" (from PIE root *kwetwer- \"four\"). And then: > Meaning \"square shape or area\" is recorded by **late 14c**. (Old English used feower-scyte). Geometric sense \"four-sided rectilinear figure\" is from **1550s**; [my emphasis] So it would seem that we end up having the word \"square\" because right angles were important for building. 60 degree angles (as found in an equilateral triangle) would not have been as important, therefore, no specific term ever arose. This is a bit of a guess based on the etymology, though."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6u7qh2 | How and why did "I have to" come into existence in English as a substitute for "I need to?" | I can't think of any connection between the two and I was curious as to how the connection came about. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlqscwk"
],
"text": [
"The earliest meaning of \"to have\" was \"to grasp\", way back, before English even existed. From there it took on many more functions. First, it started meaning \"to own\", which was not too far from it's original meaning. Then, it became an auxiliary (helping) verb: \"I have seen him\". This happened in Old English, during the Middle Ages. It then became a modal auxiliary, \"to have to\", also in Old English. *Why* this happened is unclear, as always in language. There have been similar developments in other languages with verbs like \"to have\", such as Latin and German."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6u9biy | Why do we want to be entertained, can't we settle with a boring life? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlqy0bt"
],
"text": [
"Entertainment stimulates the brain. Our mind favors constant stimulation which is why being bored is... bad."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6ua1vk | Why is Scotland's national animal the Unicorn? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlr1fmd",
"dlr72ez"
],
"text": [
"If you lived in the birthplace of whisky, you'd be \"seeing unicorns\" too.. Hah - in all seriousness, the Unicorn is in mythology the natural enemy of the Lion. Since the Lion was adopted as the emblem of the English Royalty, it was natural that Scotland's emblem would be opposition to that. It is also worth noting that in 1300, when Robert adopted it as the animal of Scotland, people thought it was a real animal of the utmost nobility.",
"I'm going to totally disagree with /u/Ansuz07 as I already stated, Scotland had and still does use a lion as a national symbol so it makes no sense to suggest it was chosen just to be anti-English. Instead in times passed a unicorn was seen as \"remarkable for his strength but more for his great and haughty mind, who would rather die than be brought to subjection\". Keep in mind religion was a big thing at the time, from Job 39: > 9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? > 10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? > 11 Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him? > 12 Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn? [Here's a copy for a heradly book from 1816 covering the topic and its use]( URL_0 ) So I don't for a second believe that it was chosen to be anti-English more so it was an act of defiance chosen by Robert I to show Scottish independence. That's also why now in the UK royal crest the unicorn is chained up to show that the wild independant beast is tamed."
],
"score": [
16,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://archive.org/stream/systemofheraldry01nisbuoft#page/304/mode/2up"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6ubr3o | Why do professional athletes get a 'pass' when it comes to their job security after committing a crime? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlrfqdk",
"dlrfolh"
],
"text": [
"There are a few things to unpack here. From my understanding, when this is the case for a pro athlete, they don't get to \"keep\" their jobs; they get to try out for the team again. Similarly, I can interview for my job again after serving my sentence. However, if my job is something that isn't in the category of \"only a hand full of people in the world could perform to the level needed for this job\", then the employer can afford to be picky and not hire me. However, if I have a skill set that will, as you put it, bring millions of dollars in revenue to the company, and that skill set is rare enough that they're willing to overlook my domestic violence charge, then I very well may get my job back. I've personally worked with people who have had some horrible shit on their criminal records, up to and including homicide and gang affiliation, at some of my jobs, because they had an in-demand skill set. You're also leaving out politician as a job that allows this; there isn't a sitting member of Congress, to my knowledge, who doesn't have an outstanding criminal conviction, some of which are of the types you listed.",
"Pretty much across the board if you're good enough at your job (ie you make the company money), it'll go a long ways towards cutting you slack."
],
"score": [
9,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6ubv9y | non American here. Why are these statues so important? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlrghuc",
"dlrglgy",
"dlrgx51",
"dlrin6b",
"dlrhgym"
],
"text": [
"History of our country. A dark history. It'd be like Germany wanting to keep Nazi monuments up for historical value.",
"They represent different things to different people. To most people, they don't mean much. If you have a park named after Fred Jones, you're pretty likely to have a statue or plaque there, and to most people it's just the explanation of the name of the park. To some people, these statues reflect the racism of the 1920s-1940s (when many of them were put up). They are reminders of a dark part of American history. To an even smaller group, these statues reflect the notion that the US might reverse course and return to a situation where white men ruled the country and keep black people as slaves. While there are hardly any people in this group, when they get on TV they **love to talk**, and for some reason there isn't anything better to put on news TV.",
"Most of these monuments were constructed during a period of time in our country called \"Jim Crow\", many years after the Civil War was over (most Southern Civil War leaders did not want such monuments since in their view the South should move on). The mostly cheap, northern-state manufactured statues were intended to threaten the newly-enfranchised Black citizens from exercising their new right to vote or otherwise participate in the mainstream life of the post-Civil War South. Discouraging them from being \"uppity\". They were pretty much pigeon shit until the 1980s when America's broad-based commitment to Civil Rights for all began to flatten out and being politely racist began to become acceptable once again. They became, once again, beloved symbols of a civil war to keep black Americans in slavery.",
"I couldn't care less about the statues. I do, however, care a great deal about people using violence to silence their political opposition. That's unacceptable behavior in a democracy, and cannot be tolerated. Therefore, it's wrong for mobs to tear them down, and it's wrong for mobs to beat up the mobs tearing them down.",
"They are, notably, un-american by definition - statues celebrating guys who are remembered for trying to break apart the USA. For a few years they tried and then failed. Those who still like the idea of white supremacy and slavery consider them relevant. They are only important in the sense that they provide an excuse for such people to rally around an idea."
],
"score": [
13,
6,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6ucmmb | Why do so many English and Massachusetts town and city names end is -sex | I know that Massachusetts gets its naming scheme from England, but why do they end with that and other things. Gloucester and Manchester end in -cester Essex, Middlesex, Sussex all end in -sex Salisbury and Newbury and in -bury Hampton, Nortons and Suttons end in -tons Framigham and Whenham end in -ham Cambridge ends with bridge | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlrnh21",
"dlrnwpk",
"dlrozba"
],
"text": [
"-sex means \"Saxon\". So Essex would be \"East Saxon\", etc. -chester and -cester comes from the Roman *castrum*, meaning a military camp or fort. -bury is from -berg which refers to a hill or mountain. -ton comes from \"town\". \"Nortons\" means \"North Town\", \"Suttons\" is \"South Town\", etc. -ham means \"village\". -bridge means bridge. Like a real bridge.",
"Mostly they come from the origins. * cester or chester means camp or fortification of Roman origin. * sex is short for Saxons. Essex was the Eastern Saxon land, Middlesex was the middle Saxon land, etc. * bury comes from borough which comes from a proto-Germanioc word for fort or fortification. * ton is related to town, and comes from the meaning of enclosure, estate, homestead. It's from Old English which is from a germanic root. * ham is from home or homestead, from the German word heim. * bridge means it grew up around a bridge. [More here.]( URL_0 )",
"My favourite is Bristol. Many suggestions on the root of the name but one suggestion is Brycgstow Brycg - bridge and stow - place. The idea is then that the bristol L - part of the Bristolian accent which exists to this day where an L is added onto words with a vowel sound at the end (vodkal for example) took this to Bristol."
],
"score": [
26,
7,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_forms_in_place_names_in_the_United_Kingdom_and_Ireland"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6udb28 | Why did everyone in the world thought it was a good idea to use Royal Dansk boxes for sewing supplies? | Really wanted to know how this was possible, what strikes me most is that people use it specifically for sewing supplies. This is one of the biggest misteries of mankind to me. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlruzle"
],
"text": [
"This is speculation, and may end up being deleted for that, but I can think of a few reasons. * 1. They're a decent size, so you can put a decent amount of sewing supplies into one. If you need more space, you can get another one, or however many more you need. * 2. They tend to be of a similar shape and size, and you can stack them, which makes storage and transportation easy. * 3. They're metal, and have snap-on lids, which means you can accidentally drop them and reasonably be sure they're not going to break, or spill their contents everywhere. Since the contents probably include small buttons and needles, this is a good thing. * 4. They're round, which is useful for storing round things, like spools of thread. * 5. They're very high-quality, and it would be a waste to just throw away after you've eaten the cookies, so you had to do *something* with them after that. This is a general thing, and could be applied to other uses, but them just sitting around, waiting for a new use probably led to people realizing everything else about their possibilities for storing sewing supplies."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6udfsk | Why are there so much rape in India? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlrtpin"
],
"text": [
"Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained: 1. [ELI5: Why there seems to be so much rape in India ]( URL_5 ) 1. [ELI5: Why is there so much gang raping in India? ]( URL_2 ) 1. [ELI5: Why are there so many men raping women in india? ]( URL_3 ) 1. [ELI5 INDIA: Why is there so much rape in India????? ]( URL_6 ) 1. [ELI5: Why is rape so common in India? ]( URL_1 ) 1. [ELI5: Why are men raping so many women in India? ]( URL_4 ) 1. [[ELI5] What is there so much rape in India ]( URL_0 )"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27seit/eli5_what_is_there_so_much_rape_in_india/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3p3ryo/eli5_why_is_rape_so_common_in_india/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1v9nti/eli5_why_is_there_so_much_gang_raping_in_india/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6oivro/eli5_why_are_there_so_many_men_raping_women_in/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1blt6h/eli5_why_are_men_raping_so_many_women_in_india/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1m6ugr/eli5_why_there_seems_to_be_so_much_rape_in_india/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kvzgi/eli5_india_why_is_there_so_much_rape_in_india/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6ufbop | Why people (usually teens) pretend they are not interested in someone when they really are? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dls9gn7"
],
"text": [
"When revealing emotion to another person, we become vulnerable to their response. When a person has low self esteem, often the risk of this vulnerability appears to be greater than the reward. Also, at that age we are dealing with a complex storm of hormones, perceptions, social environment, and a lack of experience dealing with that mess. Also, awkwardness is awkward."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6ugt7g | Why are youtube comments so bad? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlsjl5h"
],
"text": [
"There is basically no moderation as far as I know, so any shitty comment stays there, and downvoting comments does basically nothing on youtube so even shitty comments with a lot of replies will be near the top. Also most people will upvote any comment that's relatable, so you have a bunch of people making lame jokes and getting to the top."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6uhh6p | What is franchising in sports? how does it work and what are its merits and disadvantages? | I've been seeing talks about franchising in one of the esports scenes so i've been wondering about what it really is | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlsowrt"
],
"text": [
"In major professional sports like the NFL or NBA, each team is owned individually and run as a separate business which is affiliated with other businesses that all operate under the rules and guidelines of the league. Players are employees of the team, not the league. This is similar to how a franchised business like McDonald's operates, too. There is the corporate entity that sells franchises and then the individual franchise owners are small businesses that run according to the policies set by the franchiser -- how the restaurant must look, menu, where they get the supplies, how much they must pay into advertising pool. Not familiar with esports, but I know many of the smaller professional sports have been league owned, where there is just one company who controls all of the teams financially. Sounds like they may be trying to move toward the model of other pro sports by selling franchises, which mean the league itself would get money up front from whomever buys a team. The team owners would profit from the operations of their team. But it shifts risk to the owners, and you could end up with a league that loses teams if they aren't well managed and go bankrupt."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6uhiju | Why is there such a difference between Afrikaans and Dutch (so much so that it is classed as a different language) and the different dialects of English are so similar? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlsp74q",
"dlsrnhg"
],
"text": [
"There's no good definition of what is a language and what is a dialect. For example, Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish are similar enough that they are sometimes considered dialects of the same language. But most of the times they're called \"languages\". On the other hand, two people who both speak \"Chinese\" or \"Arabic\" might barely be able to understand each other because their local variety is so different. It's often more of a political question than a linguistic one.",
"It's a good question, but I suppose when one \"dialect\" becomes mostly unintelligible to a speaker of another dialect, then it must be reclassified as a new language. I speak some Afrikaans, enough to comfortably listen to a radio broadcast for example. I understand almost no Dutch. A more extreme case - I speak a little Italian, Many words and phrases of written Portuguese were familiar, or at least translatable, but spoken Portuguese doesn't resemble spoken Italian at all (at least , not to my ears)"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6uhx25 | Art heists. How do the criminals sell their goods when it's obvious they were stolen and whoever buys them will never be able to show them? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlsrcsj",
"dlsrew7",
"dlt2qnj",
"dlsr856"
],
"text": [
"Whoever buys them *in a country with honest police forces and international extradition treaties* will never be able to show them. Typically stolen art, exotic cars, and artifacts end up in private collections in slightly less than reputable nations. Yes a billionaire in the US or France can't get away with showing off a dubiously acquired sculpture for very long, but one in Russia or Malaysia can.",
"**Not everyone needs to display their art for the world to see.** A stolen piece of artwork will be sold significantly under market value because selling it through a legitimate auction is impossible, and the fact that the person who buys it can't possibly sell it afterward. It has no real monetary value anymore. With no real monetary value, the piece of art only has the value that the owner places on it. If someone stole the Mona Lisa, and then sold it to a collector, the collector then knows that he has the real Mona Lisa in his collection. Just knowing that, and being able to walk into a room and look at it all he likes is enough reason to buy the thing in the first place.",
"They are not always sold. Often they are held for ransom to the insurance company. An art piece may be insured for 50 million dollars. It gets stolen and the insurance company will have to pay that out. So they may put out a statement or even get contacted by the thief and agree to give them the item for 5 million dollars. It is a good win for the thief and saving for the insurance company, though they still lost some money.",
"Basically you steal a painting and then go to a fence. A fence comunicates between the buyer and the seller most times so there is annonimity between the parties. The buyers know it is stolen and keep it in their private collection. you can always say it is a high quality forgery/copy cat piece and keep it on display."
],
"score": [
37,
26,
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6ui0u4 | Why do blatantly controversial organizations like KKK and Neo Nazi still allowed to exist in US? | These are, to the best of my knowledge, super racist organizations. Wouldn't these be as bad as allowing a communist organization during the 1950s? Cmiiw though, as I'm not from US. Thanks! | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlsscoa",
"dlssv3y",
"dlswr3f",
"dlsu45b",
"dlsrwpo",
"dlszcdg",
"dlsypbu",
"dlt0rml"
],
"text": [
"Because it is not illegal, in the US, to be: * blatantly controversial; * super racist; * communist; Free speech and expression in the US only excepted in very narrow and explicitly defined ways, to include things like defamation, child pornography, and true threats.",
"The US constitution is considered the most important document in US government, if you try to make a law that violates the constitution, it is rejected. That being said, the constitution contains this phrase, known as the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” US Citizens are generally very protective and prideful of this idea and it still applies in the cases of the Klan and Nazis. As a US citizen, I have no desire to ban these groups either, while I have zero support for them, I do not wish to violate their rights. That being said, this mainly protects “expression of ideas,” some content, like child pornography, is forbidden and not a violation here, as it has no meaningful ideas that can’t be conveyed through other means, just content. Among other things, “fighting words” are also not protected by this, “fighting words” being words used to incite violence (which, as someone else said, would be something like “Let’s beat up those guys over there!” This is also a part of the constitution known as the “Bill of Rights,” which sets many restrictions on government to establish people’s rights in the US. This section is general is very revered among the American public.",
"I suppose you can throw antifa and BLM in there too. Free speech is paramount. The illegal part of all of it is when someone becomes violent.",
"Any sort of government action to \"ban\" groups like the KKK would only push them even more underground and even further radicalize them and in a perverse way actually give truth to their claims of being persecuted for their beliefs. There would be no practical way to \"not allow\" them. Sure in more liberal and urban parts of the country it would be relatively easy to identify those people whenever they came out in the open but in some parts of the country where confederate flags are still flown in the open people people are a lot more sympathetic to those ideas, or at least the idea that you should be allowed to have those ideas. Short of calling in the national guard and risking a violent civil uprising you just have to let them be, provided they don't advocate openly for violence. (which in generally, recent events notwithstanding, they don't generally do)",
"America protects free speech and expression, so when those groups aren't violating other laws, they aren't really doing anything wrong. They are promoting hate and often violence, however, so we will see how these recent events shape future laws.",
"For the same reason Antifa is allowed to exist. Your beliefs are not illegal, actions are.",
"In the US we have the right to assembly, and the right to free speech protected in our constitution. So long as those organizations are not breaking financial regulations, actively planning imminent violence, or violating other laws they cannot be prohibited in the US legally simply for existing and being disliked. Attempting to do so would violate what it means to be American. And Communist organizations are fully allowed in the US, and did exist during the 1950s.",
"An important founding principle of the united states is that the government has no right to control the thoughts of its citizenry. In large part, that was one of the reasons the US itself was founded, because the British were attempting to exert too much control over the colonists. The US has \"free speech\" laws stating that the government cannot prevent anyone from making any kind of speech. Most other countries have \"hate speech\" laws, but the US does not, Americans would consider a law like that to be a violation of their founding principals. This is one of the ways that Americans are much more individualistic than most other western countries. Many of the \"crazy\" things foreigners see when they look at America come down to this idea that Americans are much more individualistic than the populations of other countries. For example. Canada and the US are very similar in terms of culture in many, many ways. In fact, the average American would feel right at home on the streets of Toronto. But if you look closely you'll see that Canada has things like Universal Healthcare, higher taxes, and a stronger social safety net. The underlying cause of this is that people in the US feel that the individual should rise or fall based on his or her own accomplishments, whereas in Canada they are more willing to allow society to lift everyone regardless of their own actions. The US has an individualistic score of 91, where's Canada scores only 80. Compare this to a country like China, who scores a 20. China is SIGNIFICANTLY more collectivist than western countries. In addition to being communist, the people tend to believe that the individual works to better the group, not him or herself. That group could be defined as the family unit, the town or even the country but the point is, they don't do it for themselves they do it for the group. \"It\" being a somewhat subjective term."
],
"score": [
25,
18,
6,
6,
5,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6uiic2 | Why are the confederate monuments a problem now and not while Obama was in office? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlswdbd"
],
"text": [
"This wasn't something that was decided at the federal level; most of these statues had people voting in local elections or voicing their opinion at things like town hall meetings and saying that they wanted those statues out of their communities; It seems that over the last 8 years, public perception of those statues has shifted to the point that most people no longer want them. It's also part of a cycle: Republicans lost to Obama, which made them less complacent and made them more active in local/mid-term elections during Obama's run as president. Now they won the Presidency, and Democrats are less complacent and are becoming more active in local/mid-term elections; this is especially true of younger voters, which tend to skew pretty heavily left compared to other demographics."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6ukyv3 | Why has our culture come to see older things as being more authentic? | "vintage" comes to mind | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dltggbn"
],
"text": [
"The idea is that these things have been validated by being tried for a while and not rejected. Some old things are rejected as silly (think: white polyester disco suits). Those that remain have \"passed the test of time\" and are now considered accepted and good."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6ulbei | Why do aesthetic tastes (such as in clothing, furniture, car design) change so drastically and quickly? | It just seems so strange how something can be in style one day, and then a mere 20 years later it's not just outdated, but considered terribly ugly. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dltjfj8"
],
"text": [
"commercialism. if you were happy with your old stuff, you wouldn't need to buy new stuff. all the designers and manufacturers come out with new looking stuff and market the old stuff as ugly and new stuff as pretty in order to make money. our tastes are hugely influenced by others."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6umjd0 | why did the Blu-ray vs DVD not start such a huge revolution as the DVD vs VHS did? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dltybhk",
"dltti0e",
"dlttp41"
],
"text": [
"It was much easier to justify upgrading a VHS collection to DVD than to upgrade a DVD collection to blu-ray, for a few reasons: * VHS - > DVD was a VAST improvement, immediately perceivable to nearly any member of the public. Even now I occasionally find myself asking \"is this a DVD or a blu-ray?\" if I arrive at a friend's house midway through a movie or something, especially if it's being shown on a smaller screen. The different, while apparent, isn't the radical night/day upgrade that VHS - > DVD was. * People had just upgraded their libraries from VHS to DVDs and the idea of upgrading yet again for...not much noticeable gain didn't catch on to the public very quickly. Many people simply couldn't justify the upgrade - you didn't get enough from the huge money investment. * At the time blu-ray started appearing, many people didn't own 1080p HD TVs. While blu-rays technically do look better than DVDs on 720p TVs, the difference is even more minor than the difference between DVD and 1080p. Unless you had a 1080p TV, you gained very little from upgrading from DVD to blu-ray. * Blu-ray players were very expensive for a lot of years, costing roughly $200+. People already had their DVD players / DVD collections. Spending $200 on a player that didn't improve the experience THAT much wasn't on the priority list for many people. * Blu-ray movies are more expensive than DVD movies, often reaching $30 or even $40 for a blu-ray movie in the first few years of the format being available. The cost difference per movie just wasn't worth it for a lot of people. * Blu-ray started gaining traction basically as movie streaming started becoming more available. The choice had become whether to build a blu-ray collection or just start streaming in my movies. Over time, blu-ray, especially 4k blu-ray, has become more of the enthusiast option - a premium choice for discerning viewers who want the highest quality movie possible. Much of the public, however, has opted for the more convenient, and cheaper, streaming option. It's possible to be a movie buff today without owning any physical media of movies, thanks to streaming. I'm personally not a fan of streaming services because I don't like the idea of being limited to the choices available on the service at the time and the fact that shows/movies can disappear from the service at any time. For many people though, it's just more practical and more money-wise to spend the few dollars a month on a streaming service and never have to think about how they're going to get to watch movies ever again.",
"Because the DVD was a considerable improvement. Higher clarity, no need to rewind, and smaller, more reliable form factor are all huge bonuses. Blu-Rays, though, what's the difference? Yet higher resolution and greater storage capacity. VHS needed upgrading because it could be so blurry/damaged at times that it was literally unintelligible. But anything digital and over 720 resolution is basically just a luxury. And a DVD is enough to store a whole movie, so the extra capacity of Blu Rays really amounts to little. EDIT: Same thing with 4k movie discs. Replacing your existing movie collection, provided you have a 4k tv and player, is just not worth the cost to some because it's so incremental.",
"To add to existing comments, backward compatibility. For VHS/DVD, I either have to abandon my current collection of movies or maintain two separate systems. For Blueray/DVD, I just got a Blueray player and I can still use my DVDs. I get to keep my existing collection while only maintaining one player."
],
"score": [
10,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6umllh | Why do other cultures, (specifically Asian come to mind,) have significantly less of a taboo around “fat-shaming” and frequently call out (what they consider to be) overweight people? | Not sure if this is the right place for this. I’ve seen lots of Asians criticize each other’s weight openly, sometimes joking, sometimes seriously, among friends and family. Of course, I don’t know, but it almost seems old-fashioned and makes me wonder if there was a point in time in the west where people were stricter in regarding and more open in calling out other people’s weight. It certainly seems that Asian cultures are stricter in general, to the point that what they consider fat would often not even register as being fat in the west. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dltujor",
"dlucix7",
"dltub24"
],
"text": [
"Part of it may have to do with being a more traditional and more communal society. In more western societies individual > community. If an individual wishes to be fat, its hard to argue with the \"it's my choice\" argument. I still personally think western countries can be overly careful on this one - given that in the UK atm 2/3rds of men and 1/2 of women are overweight or obese, a little fat shaming isn't the worst thing that could happen. 2/3rds / 1/2 of the country aren't fat because of genetics. In eastern societies, community > individual on average. This means theres more pressure to conform to what is seen as \"right\" and \"normal\", more pressure to be a productive contributing member of society as defined by the group and not by yourself. They also tend to be slightly more traditionalist, and traditionally very few people were fat, and fatness generally implied laziness or lots of wealth. They probably go too far in the direction of fat shaming -some people genuinely are heavier than others, and they can certainly be cruel about it. It's also worth noting that Asians have different expectations, and slightly different body shapes on average - this means what is \"overweight\" is actually different over there. Based on a BMI scale, over 25 is overweight in the west, but in Japan over 23 is overweight (I believe this > 23 is the same in many asian countries). So they are genuinely used to people being thinner, and someone we may regard as \"not too bad\" might actually be very overweight from their perspective.",
"Living in Asia I'm quite ok with it. I'm not Asian but it has my blessing. Fat shaming, STFU they should be shamed. You don't get to me an overweight slob by healthy eating. It's a total lack of self control 90% of time and Asians are all about moderation and self control. For instance, on my FB feed there's a picture of three students around a large Korean ice. In USA each teen would have a quart of their own ice cream with toppings. Sweets and snacks are half sized...girls in hallway sharing Ovaltine cookies out of a tiny packet. Each took ONE. In US the kids would eat a fucking box. Food in US is poison, especially fast food. If you eat that shit you're a dumbshit and why shouldn't you be shamed? Fucking disgusting. Finally, this fat white teacher at my school a \"vegetarian\". Ugh big as a fucking house. She just dislikes local food but obviously is addicted to bread and sugar. Finally, I'd like to add the women here look dynamite into their 40s. You think it's easy? They like Starbucks frappachino and cheesecake also but it's done in total moderation. Women here work at looking good, even some old hag has more dignity than to go outside in sweatpants. Everyone that can afford cheap, smart clothes makes an effort to look their best and I applaud them all and it makes me do the same at 58. Downvote away piggies",
"They do not see it as directly insulting or belittling a person. We in the West do see it as both insulting and belittling."
],
"score": [
21,
8,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6uplrp | Why do we use stars as a rating system? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlumj1u",
"dluodch",
"dluie31"
],
"text": [
"So apparently a guidebook from the early 1800's used exclamation points and then later another guidebook borrowed the system but used stars. URL_0",
"I would venture the guess that the Michelin star rating probably helped solidify stars as a well known rating symbol. They are hard to acquire, making the \"worth\" of stars perceived higher than other symbols around when they started the Michelin system. Others saw it's notoriety and cloned it with different rating requirements. But I could be way off....",
"What would you rather have spiders? Okay so say we use your weird spider based raiting system? Could you imagine opening up your sunday newspaper and its full of spiders because this weekends blockbuster was a hit and everyone was giving it 9/10 spiders. See stars make sense because they aren't spiders."
],
"score": [
6,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_(classification)"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6uqz1t | Why must marriage be between two people and not between three? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dluptwk"
],
"text": [
"Because two is the number required for creating children. Some cultures support multiple wives per husband, because you still can tell (in theory) who the father is. Fewer cultures support multiple husbands per wife, since now parents are hard to determine."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6urdnx | given the conflicts between them, how do Sunni and Shia Muslims handle the Hajj? | They go to the same holy sites at the same times. How is there not violence? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlutv5o"
],
"text": [
"Saudi Arabia is very transparent regarding Hajj, they consider it a right to all muslims regarsless of conflicts or beliefs. A recent example would be Qatar's embargo, Saudi Arabia was very clear on that Qataris will still be allowed to perform their pilgrimages even with the ongoing conflict of interests. There is also very tight security at the holy sites to prevent any situations from arising."
],
"score": [
11
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6usm5v | Why does Fox allow their shows to make fun of the network? | [Example]( URL_0 ) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlv5673",
"dlv59wr",
"dlv52hp"
],
"text": [
"Fox, like most TV companies, cares formost about money. If the show's jokes can get a laugh out of the expense of Fox, that just adds to the people who may stick through the commerical break. Furthermore, Fox's ability to take a joke could attract other shows, which could increase profits further. TL:DR: As long as there's no serious critism on Fox, they just like the money.",
"Fox news makes money doing their stuff, Fox TV shows make money doing their stuff. As long as both are making money fox is happy.",
"Your taking a few, super specific examples of shows that do this. These are very much the exception, considering Fox has had thousands of shows. And even in these examples, they are often \"fun\" or parody and not derogatory (although the Simpsons has pushed it). Here's each: The Simpsons - They have a specific clause in their deal, that was made very long ago that the network does not get oversight on this stuff and they can do whatever. They have used this to poke fun at Fox their entire run. But if you watch it, none of it is that crazy, its more fun and funny. Futurama - Made by the same people as the Simpsons, with similar contract stuff, and its just done for comedy and fun, nothing more than one-off nonsense jokes. Family Guy - In the very tiny amounts they do it, its generally parody and fun, not derogatory. Married with Children - This was **the** show on Fox, and when Fox was a new network, and doing new and weird stuff that didn't work out, everyone was telling these kinds of jokes about Fox. They also talked a lot about TV of the show, so this was a bit of an inside joke, they make fun of Fox, and are on Fox."
],
"score": [
11,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6uvr7f | Why are people quick to march & protests over race instead of improving quality of life or fight against corruption? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlvrdc7",
"dlvq0oc",
"dlvq3qk",
"dlvs06e",
"dlvuvl2"
],
"text": [
"Most of the protests you're seeing right now are actually what might be termed 'fund-raisers'. If you hold fairly radical views, it's difficult to recruit people to your cause. However, if you frame those views in terms of broadly accepted principles and then paint your opponents as opposing those principles, you can get a lot of mainstream support for your otherwise objectionable views. That's what is happening in places like Charlottesville and Boston. The people actually organizing - and benefitting from - the protests are radicals with an agenda you almost certainly wouldn't support. However, when they're able to convince people not to look carefully at their own views while categorizing their opponent's views in a highly negative fashion, there gain an enormous amount of support and free publicity despite the fact that their actual cause enjoys minimal support. In contrast, you rarely see protests against 'corruption' for the same reason you rarely see protests against crime: we already have mechanisms in place to deal with it. So the only people willing to protest in such a case are those who believe the system is fundamentally broken - and they're not a very large group. What you need to remember whenever you see these protests is that this is a *job* for the core group. While they don't have the sort of explicit door charges you'd find at an event like a concert or a convention, getting people to show up is how they make their living. Vague, complex topics like 'corruption' don't turn out the crowds, so they don't address those issues any more than a concert organizer in Harlem is going to hold \"Polka Fest '17\".",
"> Seems like if theres a protests going on its never about things that could impact or improve the daily lives of citizens. Protesting against people who have expressed a wish *for you to be killed* seems like it could lead to a pretty major quality of life improvement, unless you don't consider \"being less afraid of being murdered\" a quality of life improvement.",
"My opinion is its kind of like helping someone with a broken bone vs with a mental illness. Its a lot easier to see what is wrong and how to treat it with a broken bone. With a mental illness its hard to see and hard to treat, along with more people than we like to admit not even acknowledging that mental illness is a real issue.",
"What are you talking about? BLM protests? Charlottesville? Either way I don't think you understand what's going on. Black Lives Matter protests were protesting police violence against minorities. That's a specific cause with significant gain for them and their children. Imagine if your unarmed kids were being shot by cops? Charlottesville 'confederate statue protest' was ostensibly about 'protecting statues that are part of americas history' but in reality the attendees came armed, held Nazi flags, and chanted 'blood and soil' (a Nazi chant). It's obvious to everyone now that they are white supremacists emboldened by Trump (most of them self-proclaimed). This led to the counter-protest in Charlottesville against race-based ideology, and Nazis. It also functioned as a community show of solidarity. Also, these are NOT the only protests that take place. During the healthcare debate, people did sit-ins and protests in offices of their representatives. AND it seems like you've already forgotten about Standing Rock protests!!! If you see a deserving, important cause and no one is protesting for it, start it up! Don't get bitter and complain on the internet that 'no one protests the right causes'. That's a pattern of negative thinking that will prevent you from meaningful activism",
"Marcher and protesters are also involved at the community level in most cases. Its not \"one or the other\" like your question implies."
],
"score": [
16,
13,
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6uw8tg | Why is the major axis of paper/text documents vertical, while the major axis of human vision is horizontal? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlvtqba",
"dlvu4uc"
],
"text": [
"Because written lines that are too long make text hard to read. The longer the line, the easier it is for you to lose track of where you are when you have to wrap back to the other side to continue a sentence. You'll tend to accidentally start re-reading the same line, or skip over the next line, more frequently the longer the lines are.",
"Human vision is circular, and the point in which you can look sharply is a quite small circle. So in order to read a text your eyes have to be pointed directly at the characters. It is a bit easier to move your eyes from right to left then up and down due to evolutionary reasons. So most languages have text going horizontal although this is not always the case and does have other reasons as well. (For example having to leave space for your hand to rest on the unwritten part of the script.) But if you have a long line of text it can take some time for your eyes to get back to the beginning for the next line. We have seen text where they just continue writing in reverse on the next line but this did not catch on. However if you shorten the lines into smaller columns then there is less distance between the end of one line and the start of the next. You only need to stop reading when you get to the bottom of the page and have to start over again from the top of the next column or page."
],
"score": [
28,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6uwt57 | Is the purpose of jail just to keep criminals out of society, preventing them from harming others? Or is it also to punish those people? | If it is merely the former, why aren't these criminals allowed to have certain amenities and personal items, such as computers, phones or personal showers, even if it is on their own dime? If it is both, does this undermine the objectivity of the court system? Is total objectivity even the goal, or is justice meant to be handled on a more personal level? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlvz050",
"dlvyfbe",
"dlvyrkx"
],
"text": [
"Prison sentences are intended to do a number of things: *Prevent the criminals from committing more crimes while they're in prison *Make the prisoner decide that they don't want to go back to jail when they get out *Make other people who are thinking about committing crimes decide not to because they don't want to go to jail *Offer prisoners an opportunity to address issues that led to them committing the crime in the first place *Demonstrate our societal condemnation of crime and serve as an example of how criminals deserve punishment Obviously, these different goals push towards different ways of designing prisons, so you'll see a lot of variation from place to place. It's also worth noting that most prisoners *do* offer some amenities that can be earned by working in the prison or other kinds of good behavior.",
"Your question is loaded in assuming it's exclusively one or the other. It's both, plus a dash of rehabilitation.",
"In the USA they now have a thing called for-profit prisons and the goal of those prisons is to make money. In fact they charge the local community if they are not kept at a certain capacity of being full. Pretty scary to think about. For-profit prisons want to be full. That means they have zero interest in rehabilitating people. They want people to re-offend so they can be arrested and incarcerated again.. and again.. and for longer. They have no desire in crime prevention! Originally prisons were set up with the idea of punishing criminals (so as to deter other's from committing crime) as well as to keep criminals away from society. They have SOME personal items and things to pass the time with (otherwise they would go crazy).. in the past such things were lot allowed it it caused people to be violent with each other out of boredom. They cannot allow too many things because the idea is still punishment."
],
"score": [
12,
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6uwzz9 | Why does terrific mean something good, while terrible, horrible and horrific means something bad? | Horrible = bad Terrible = bad Horrific = bad Terrific = good | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlw073j",
"dlw66i3"
],
"text": [
"Terrific used to mean about the same as terrible: something that causes terror. In the 1800's it started meaning good things. The process by which a negative word takes on positive meanings is \"amelioration\". *Why* it happens is unclear, like a lot of language evolution. But there are more modern examples of \"bad\" words meaning \"good\" things: \"bad\" itself (badass!), \"wicked\", \"sick\", etc. \"Luxury\" and \"nice\" are examples of words that--much longer ago--took on positive connotations. \"Nice\" used to denote something that was simple, absurd, or ignorant. \"Luxury\" used to be a bad thing (an excess of comfort and convenience).",
"I seen alot of old usages of terrific to describe something that is amazing in its destructive capabilities like a terrific storm, something good at being bad. Its just a small hop and a jump to it being used as a term for something that is good."
],
"score": [
10,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6uxkom | How does one high profile boxing match generate hundreds of millions of dollars? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlw4yh4"
],
"text": [
"Pay-per-view at about $100 each. Every million purchases is $100 million. Business like bars have to pay much, much more. That's why you usually have to buy a ticket just to watch it at a bar. That's the bulk of it but there are also all of the sponsorships for the fight and then the actual tickets for the arena where the fight is. T-Mobile arena in Vegas seats 18,000 for boxing. I don't know the exact average face value price but let's say it's $1,000 average (it's probably higher). That's $18 million just from arena tickets."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6uy6np | Why is every religion in the world's ultimate goal to make everyone in the world that religion? Why does every religion think they're the only true religion and that all other religions are false? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlw9cj4",
"dlw9te8"
],
"text": [
"That's a broad brush you have there especially when 7 of the 8 \"religions\" you listed are Christian denominations, not religions. Jews have no command to go out an proselytize(convert new followers). If you're a Jew, great! If you're not a Jew, unfortunate. If you want to become Jewish that's fine, but no one is going to heckle you into going to Temple to convert if you're not Hinduism also lacks a command to go out and convert new followers. Your main issue seems to be that you consider Christianity and Islam to be \"every religion in the world\"",
"All those religions are monotheistic. That literally means that there is only one God. Religion is based on the word of God. According to the word of God, he created everything - the entire universe, including ourselves. Thus, accepting many different religions doesn't make too much sense. If people accept other religions as true, does that mean there is more than one God? Is there a pantheon of gods like in Greek mythology? So which of those gods actually created the universe? How do we choose which god to follow? Or maybe there is only one God but he said different things to different people? Why would he do that? Does the word of God have multiple versions and you get to choose which one to believe? How do you choose the \"right\" one?"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6uzog1 | Why do the most impoverished/crime ridden areas (i.e. Detroit, parts of Baltimore) have populations that are mostly ethnic minorities? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlwv01x"
],
"text": [
"The ghosts of segregation. Let's take Oakland. After WWII GIs got great deals on mortgages. They bought into suburbs moving out of city centers. Blacks didn't get mortgages so they had to save up. As soon as they could afford to move in, whites with their ability to get mortgages left. So you start saving for a $40k home, the value drops to $20k (you lost $20k) and now you need $80k to move into a new house. The '80s roll around, drug policy in full swing, sprinkle some crack.... Thing about crime...policing creates it. If you go 80 in a 65, is it a crime? Not unless you get caught. Stockton has as bad a drug issue as Oakland. Similar population size. But Oakland has twice as many cops. More cops, more crime. More single parent homes. And the cycle continues. Detroit was already segregated. So when the auto industry collapsed, who had the ability to move?"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6v0q0r | Why are news headlines in the present tense and not past? | In English, and several other languages I know of, news article headlines use the present tense. Eg.: "Navy destroyer collides with a merchant ship..." "[So-and-so] dies at 92" Of course, the article itself will employ the past tense since they are relaying an event that has already occurred, but headlines are invariably present tense. Although it seems perfectly natural to read, since it's so ubiquitous, on the other hand, present tense for a event that is in the past (even if very recent) is quite strange if you think about it. (Incidentally, in English at least, it doesn't save much if any space for printing...) ***Edit/Addendum*** There's another quirk about past/present usage in headlines I just noticed... The following are two current headlines from well-known newspapers (online), but they're relatively exceptional by being in the past tense: "The Trump administration just disbanded a federal advisory committee on climate change" "A heart transplant saved this 13-year-old Ohio boy's life. But he died on his first day of school." These are headlines, but what jumps out at me is that they are complete sentences. Regardless of urgency/immediacy, or the fact that they are headlines, present tenses would just seem "unnatural" here. If you *were* to rewrite them in the present tense (as most headlines are), you would also need to make other changes as well for it not to sound strange, e.g: "Trump administration disbands federal advisory committee on climate change"; "Heart transplant saves 13-year-old Ohio boy's life - dies on first day of school"; So present tense seems only to be "acceptable" if the headlines are not properly complete sentences. (In light of the above, that's why I don't find the "immediacy" explanation alone very satisfying.) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlwuj2n",
"dlwuidn"
],
"text": [
"It's all about conveying the sense of immediacy and urgency. When you read a headline it conveys the feeling that this is fresh news.",
"Because the recent past is considered the present linguistically most of the time in English, and the News is primarily reporting of recent or ongoing events."
],
"score": [
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6v2u9u | Why is alcohol socially accepted but (almost) all other 'mind altering' substances not? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlx8ne9",
"dlx989a",
"dlxaglr",
"dlx9eg0",
"dlx92w8",
"dlx8kqo"
],
"text": [
"Humans across a wide variety of cultures have been manufacturing alcohol for over 5,000 years. It's built into a lot of cultural traditions, even the Bible mentions it. If it was invented 10 years ago it probably wouldn't be legal.",
"We have been actively seeking out and using mind altering plants and fungus LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG before we were actively fermenting alcohol as a species. But the conspiracy theorist in me will tell you that the government will promote alcohol because it dumbs people down and makes them not think or ask questions. I'd also like to imagine that when our ancestors came into contact with all the local and ingenious tribes they thought their practices of using psychoactive plants and fungus might be barbaric and not meant for the nice posh culture they wanted to replace it with. Our culture wants to give you coffee and other focusing drugs during the week to be productive and then when the weekend roles around promote alcohol to numb you until you have to start over again Where as other mild altering substances (strictly only looking at psychedelics) will cause much more curiosity and question asking which could cause people to go against the status quo. a lot of psychedelics use to be legal, but then this war on drugs got started to distract from real issues and target our problems on the hippie and ethic cultures that were using these drugs (the counter culture) people have spent their entire lives asking and debating this very topic and even though we have made a lot of progress we still have a long way to go",
"As my dad would say \"you can't accidentally make heroin by forget about your apple juice\" (ie: alcohol is easy to make, even by accident) But as my mum proved by throwing birdseed into the backyard, you can accidentally grow cannabis. **It all comes down to a fear of things you don't understand.** Alcahol as a substance and a drug is something almost everyone understands on some level. Most people know it can be made through natural fermentation, that it is antimicrobial, that it's flammable, and that it has a depressive effect and can cause dehydration. We understand these effects and feel safe experimenting with alcahol because we have a large frame of reference due to societal exposure. Alcahol is legal and normalised, we are allowed to ask questions, do research, make our own informed decision, and seek help if you needed, so there is less fear. Alcahol has almost always been legal (prohibition of Alcahol has only effected a few countries and rarely lasts long) and even when it's recreationally prohibited it's still used in medical and industrial applications as a disinfectant, propellant, etc. Meanwhile, other drugs have become prohibited and taboo, the information that made us feel safe and normal around them lost to time, the outright myths or the truthful downsides highlighted to strengthen societal support of prohibition continues to add to the fear of the substance itself. Why something becomes prohibited is a combination of health and politics. A very real problem is identified, say, children dying from opium overdose due to heroin infused cough syrup. That's a very good reason to ban heroin from cough syrup, or require a prescription. But introduce politics or economics into the equation, if someone has something to gain from prohibition, it becomes smarter to say \"heroin existing at all, kills children\" and build fear to help publicly support prohibition, which down the line profits someone. This doesn't just happen with the well known illicit drugs. Let's look at caffeine, in the form of coffee, a beverage that everyone enjoyed because it required boiling water (thus killing most waterborne bacteria) and didn't require alcohol, which left you feeling groggy, and actually made you feel a bit sharper. Introduce a company that stands to profit if coffee becomes less popular, Postum, a boiled drink that is caffeine free, they released ad campaigns that implied coffee stunts the physical growth of children, which had no supporting evidence at the time and still doesn't, but it spread concern and hesitation around coffee, and helped increase sales of Postum. Some companies even began refusing the sale of coffee to children as a result, over fear they could be held responsible if that child were harmed, misinformation fuelled fear, fear supported avoidance, avoidance prevented access to accurate information. (side note, Postum is inferior to Horlicks in every way except their marketing) That explains how fear arises, and how prohibition can proceed or follow public fear. And when you look at the drugs we are comfortable with today , alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, etc, these are drugs that have rarely experienced prohibition, and have always profited someone to keep freely available and publicly supported (within reason) There are also drugs that are marketed as medicinal that are seen in a positive light, which are derived from or related to drugs that are prohibited and seen less positive. My mother happily applies lignocaine to her nerve damage, but also speaks out against cocaine. My father happily takes his narcoleosy meds, but frowns upon the existence of meth. Targin, the brand of oxycodone which is formulated with naloxone to reduce opiate euphoria, it's still an opiate, but it's marketed as a non-mind altering substance. When Oxycontin and Oxycodone were first formulated, they were too were marketed as safe, and \"without the high of morphine\" and had very little fear surrounding them, at the time there was someone to profit from their introduction to the market, people where exited to learn, ask questions, and accept these drugs. But now, we have conclusive evidence that they *can* be harmful, we have public fear, and we have someone who can profit from protecting people from the harm of these drugs, so we have scare mongering on one side, and placating and risk downplaying on the other side, which leads to public uncertainty and a great divide of opinions. Part of the fear is in the image of the drug, and how you view the typical user. Drugs like lignocaine and ritalin are marketed to functional people with medical problems, while drugs like cocaine and meth are publicly seen to belong to degenerative, desolate, non functioning people who have addictions. Addiction itself isn't marketed as the mental health condition it is, but rather a state of being a lesser person, why? Because presenting this image to the general public profits someone somewhere. (eg, we don't need to spend money on safe injection rooms if the tax payers would rather addicts OD in the gutter \"like the deserve, the filthy degenerates\") We're starting to see the same divide in cannabis as it moves out of prohibition, into medicinal, and eventually recreational. Initially someone was profiting from its prohibition (prohibition of marijuana may have been racially and politically stirred depending on your country) but now as companies are pushing to understand its medical applications, and other companies are pushing to market it as a safe recreational drug, there is profit to be made in reducing public fear and legalising it and therefore marketing it. We start with a cute and tear jerking story about how CBD oil saved little Charlotte's life, then we show how average white collar Joe can functionally hold down his mon-fri during the week but enjoy a joint on the the weekend instead of a beer, and still be a first class citizen, and soon cannabis is normalised. Information is freely available, It's not taboo too ask questions and people become free to decide for themselves if that drug is for them or not. So Basically.... ** Because Somebody somewhere profits from maintaining a public image of the drug, to either support prohibition, or support freedom of responsible use.**",
"Remember that alcohol is not entirely socially accepted as about 30% of the population does not drink and drugs are not entirely socially unacceptable since prescription drug abuse if the fastest growing type of addiction in America on top of the already existing illegal drug issues. It is a difficult issue and one I would like to see better addressed not by law enforcement but through education and treatment.",
"Beats me. Marijuana dates back 10,000 years as medicine in China and hallucinogenic plants for thousands of years as well in other cultures. Alcohol is one of the worst drugs we have.",
"Because it's a practice so old that entire cultural institutions developed around it. Drinking fermented substances predates civilization itself. It's so ingrained that any attempts to make it not acceptable are quickly rejected."
],
"score": [
10,
7,
5,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6v30cq | Why is it that certain music can sound immediately Arabic, Chinese whatever and more importantly what exactly is it that gives them this sound? | For example this URL_0 which totally has an oriental flair to it. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlx9cpt",
"dlxb8eo",
"dlx9i50"
],
"text": [
"THey are based on different scales, so the progression of notes sound similar within each culture's body of music. Western music is typically based on major chords and scale progressions. Arabic and Chinese music scales incorporate more minor keys and scales. Also, the instruments used are a giveaway. Western music uses violins, horns, and reed instruments. Arabic music uses instruments that don't have real analogues in western music, like Ouds that sound a lot different than western stringed instruments. Chinese music uses lots of flute and melodic percussion (think xylophone). Also, the typical \"beats\" are different. Western music uses more regular \"beats\" think 2/4 or 4/4. Arabic and Chinese music uses this also, but has more variety and more frequently uses irregular beats than western music.",
"Arabic scales don't have more notes, but they use \"quarter-tones\" on some notes, meaning that they include notes that simply aren't found in any Western scales. The effect is recognisable straight away.",
"What we are going to call the ''normal'' (the european/American music) is composed using 7 notes whereas the Chinese music is composed using only 5 notes : it's called the pentatonic scale. The choice of instrumention also matter : if you use a guitar or a piano it will sound more normal but if you use a zhu or a Yu (Chinese instruments) it will sound more asian. I don't speak about Arabic music because I don't really know ^o^"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6v48p4 | How are borders between countries decided on water? | Given the escalating tensions between US and North Korea, I was wondering who decides what would constitute an official border across a body of water? I've never really heard of a war being fought over a water border although I keep hearing about tensions in the South China Sea. Are there any highly disputed borders on water? Given the vastness of the ocean, there must be areas akin to no man's land. What are the generally accepted rules that countries need to follow in those areas? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlxjyzl"
],
"text": [
"There's a UN treaty call the UN Convention on the Law Of the Sea (UNCLOS) that defines how to determine maritime borders. Basically, countries get control over water up to 12 nautical miles (~14 miles or 22 km) from their coasts and can set and enforce laws there. There's another zone that's also 12 nautical miles right after where countries can set and enforce laws on certain topics (customs, taxation, immigration, and pollution). So a country can control almost up to 30 miles from its coast. Once you get outside of this zone you're in what people generally call \"international waters.\" Countries also have Exclusive Economic Zones that extend 200 nautical miles (~230 miles or 370 km) from their coasts. Countries have the sole exploitation rights for natural resources in their EEZs. Islands can be very important for rights since they can extend a country's EEZ quite a bit further. When these limits bump into to each other, which happens often since coasts aren't always more than 460 miles apart, countries split the difference. So if two countries have a 300 mile-wide sea between then, their EEZs should both extend 150 miles from the coast and meet in the middle. Of course there are a lot of exceptions and there's no real rhyme or reason to many of them aside from that's how things were historically. The issue with the South China Sea has less to do with how territory should be defined under UNCLOS and more about who actually controls the islands. Many of the countries in southeast Asia have claimed at least one of islands as part of their territory at some point in history and it's not clear whose claims are the most legitimate."
],
"score": [
11
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6v4h2x | How come colors can be directly translated from one language to another? Why aren't some languages more specific in specifying color boundaries and others more broad? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlxk9ln",
"dlxmsxn"
],
"text": [
"This is a very complicated and well debated/researched phenomena. Here is one view on it: 'According to Benjamin Whorf‟s Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis a person‟s language determines and limits what the person experiences. Not all concepts can be expressed in some languages. This language barrier can affect one‟s perception of colour. For example, the Shona language in Zimbabwe and the Boas language in Liberia have no words which distinguish red from orange. Therefore, people fail to perceive different colours because of language limitations. When colour terminology in different cultures is compared, certain patterns are observed consistently. All languages have designations for black and white. If a third hue is distinguished, it is red; next comes yellow or green, and then both yellow and green. Blue is the sixth colour named, and brown is the seventh. Finally, in no particular sequence, the colours grey, orange, pink, and purple are designated.'",
"In fact, different languages really do define colours differently. If you're thinking of languages like French, Spanish or German, they're very closely related to English, so they define colours in a very similar way. But even with fairly closely related languages it's not 100% identical. The clearest example is Russian, which has two words for \"blue\": \"siniy\" is a darker shade, and \"goluboy\" is more sky-blue. In German, \"rosa\" is a gentle pink colour, but \"pink\" is a much more intense pink (more like \"shocking pink\"). In other languages, there are greater differences that sometimes cause problems for translators. Many languages, for example, have different ways of dividing blue and green: some languages might have one word for the green of foliage, and another word for all other shades of blue and green."
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6v6a7v | In ancient times when armies of 20,000+ would march/sail into battle how could they possibly afford to feed that many men for that long. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlxx7zu",
"dlxwpgw",
"dlxwp70",
"dlye2oo",
"dlxwxvq",
"dlyh7vh",
"dlxykk3",
"dlxx3pq",
"dlyf6rq"
],
"text": [
"There were a few options. Foraging what they could find was common for armies that were traveling and not really near settlements Raiding conquered settlements was always a popular one. They had enough food to feed their army(who is now dead) so they've got enough food to feed you! Buying from surrounding settlements. Farmers would generally stock up in good years to help get through bad years, they might take some of what they made to a nearby city to sell for gold to get other things they needed. Instead of them going to a city, an army representative would stop by, buy their granary, then cart it back to the army Central supply. Rome fed a lot of people from Sardinia, and later Egypt. They would ship food from Sardinia to Legions stationed in Gaul and Italy, maintaining this supply line was critical to the survival of the legions Big ass wagon trains were a common occurrence and problem. Some came from the farming villages, some were sent from the homeland, but all were great targets! When an army moved it could have a wagon train a few miles long following it, this was very slow and very vulnerable. If the supply line could be cut while an army was in hostile and barren territory they were doomed.",
"They did a whole lot of foraging. Armies generally didn't travel in one mass, because they'd be impossible to feed. They spread out across the countryside and bought, begged, or robbed what they needed. Soldiers were largely expected to provide for themselves. Armies generally only amassed in one place to fight a battle. This is why catching your enemy \"on the march\" was such a tactical feat. If you could smash your massed forces into their spread and disorganized forces they'd be crushed. Armies were often followed by a horde of camp followers that was sometimes as large or larger than the army. Families, traders, prostitutes, lenders, gamblers, you name it. They trailed the army along the baggage train and formed a sort of pre-modern logistics network. Generally though armies moved around a lot, simply because if they stayed put too long they'd starve. It was common to suffer more casualties from malnourishment and disease than from the enemy right up until the 20th century. Pre-modern armies were not a popular sight. They were like a swarm of heavily armed locusts. There are records in Europe of towns and cities simply bribing nominally friendly armies and mercenary companies to keep moving rather than stop because they were so much trouble.",
"Typically they would pillage food from the areas around them. Local farmers didn't appreciate it!",
"Bear in mind that supply chain engineering is nothing new. The tech simply was not as efficient.",
"There were three basic ways of doing this: keep up a supply train, forage, or take it from the local population. Armies of well-organized states often had supply trains providing food. For example, during Roman times governors were often required to send food and other supplies to an army's operational base. From there, it could be sent out to smaller forward bases and soldiers would go on missions from there. This is a very basic overview since the actual details could change depending on the exact period and campaign. Armies could also forage on the move. This would be less likely when actually at war and trying to get somewhere quickly and likely couldn't sustain an army on its own, but troops could always supplement with what the found/hunted. Armies would also often take food from the local population after intimidating or murdering them. Most people lived on farms in the countryside and not in walled settlements, so they would have had little protection. This would usually happen in enemy territory, but not always. The latter two methods were more common since most ancient states weren't organized enough to keep steady supply trains running. You also have to keep on the move to make those two methods work, which is one reason standing armies or large dedicated garrisons were rare.",
"First of all, such large armies were uncommon. As for supplies, they mostly plundered (on foreign ground) or procured (nicer word for plunder) on their own territory.",
"Another aspect not mentioned yet was rationing. It was in everyone's self interest to make sure they weren't gorging on food or supplies that might save their life if they made it last.",
"Lots of ways, but - like modern armies - significant headcount went to these sorts of logistics. For example, you'd be running supplies to the armies from a base somewhere, you'd be setting up a base in newly conquered areas to give you a more forward posture by not having to transport food/materials as far. You'd trade with people along the way for food/materials. You'd pillage in order to get the resources.",
"They took what they needed from the lands they marched through. Naturally, the ones who suffered the most were the poor people who had no say in the war and no way to defend themselves or their property."
],
"score": [
103,
35,
13,
7,
5,
4,
4,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6v77qh | Why do girls/women scream so much in comparison to boys/men? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dly44jx",
"dly54b7",
"dly4cbo",
"dly4eif",
"dly6kw9",
"dly51rf",
"dlyef6e",
"dly7tpm",
"dly52zd",
"dly8tsu",
"dly5dsr",
"dly76eo"
],
"text": [
"This is by no means intended to be sexist or a generalisation. I'm currently at a house with 9 girls and they all keep screaming for no apparent reason which spurred the question.",
"As with any question 'why are people different' the answer is usually 'just because'. But ill throw in some facts to help out a bit. Women naturally have higher pitched voices than men, so a scream is an effective way of using vocal cords to their maximum potential. It's an expression of surprise, alarm, excitement, or basically any intense emotion. Men usually cant reach that vocal range. Guys can kinda scream, but since its so low pitched you're gonna call it a yell or shout instead. Plus females typically communicate more extensively. Men don't talk as much and prefer nonverbal communication.",
"I asked a woman why they scream on roller coasters, and she responded \"It's Fun!\" So that's one possible answer, they like to do it. As to why it's fun, that's a good question.",
"Don't try to understand women. Not even at a very young age. I gave up around the time my daughter was 3.",
"* Men are socially conditioned not to scream * Women have higher pitched voices on average * Possibly men have been naturally selected over the millennia to produce lower, more aggressive-sounding noises when startled or afraid since they choose fight over flight more often (intimidate a potential predator, rival male etc)",
"They have found that the specific scream pitch is hearable by even elderly with hearing loss thus you have a female-centric danger call whereas the equivalent male version is different",
"If you've been raised on other role models, TV, movies, commercials, etc that show how people like you \"just are\", you subconsciously either reject or accept it. Most people accept. Girls scream for the same reason you don't. It was shown as a norm.",
"Just my opinion; I think it goes to early childhood. When little boys are yelling/screaming at the top of their lungs some adult will tell them to knock it off. When little girls are yelling/screaming at the top of their lungs most adults will say, with a wistful expression \"Little girls sure do like to scream, don't they\" and do nothing to curtail this atrocious behaviour because it's so fucking \"cute\".",
"A lot of reasons probably, like you said with the distress call vs. protector is probably right, and women also tend to be more emotive than men, so if they feel an emotion they're more likely to react to it externally than men.",
"Because back in evolutionary time a female screaming might have actually helped, which a male screaming would have produced less help. So over time males evolved to scream less, because it didn't do any good, and females evolved a high-pitched screech because a male who wanted to mate might on the off chance help her against an aggressor (weather that's another male or female or a wild animal).",
"I scream really loudly in many various scenarios. for example, someone could sneak up behind me (as a joke) and my scream will be so loud everyone within a relatively close distance will hear me. also if there is a wasp or some insect i will also scream really loudly. screams are a signal, and when you scream loudly it's like an inbuilt predator invasion prevention system :) EDIT: sometimes when im in the kitchen of my dorm, i'll just be washing dishes and someone will just open the door and i just get scared and scream for no reason. i think im just easily scared",
"I theorised that it was an evolutionary trait to attract a male to come to their rescue/defence back in the early days of humanity."
],
"score": [
37,
22,
17,
10,
9,
6,
5,
5,
4,
4,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6v7cs0 | If a crime like a robbery takes place, why can't police use traffic cams/business cams to follow the path a car took during escape? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dly7gh6",
"dly56rc"
],
"text": [
"Cop here: For one, cameras aren't always just easily accessible. Employees don't always know how to use them, they're controlled by a security company, they don't work, or the business is closed. A lot of times businesses' cameras don't always point at the road. There's also a resource issue. Going through all cameras in a path that a car might go is a massive undertaking. Police are busy, even in a big city like mine, and we have to ration resources. Often times it's simply not necessary, either. There are plenty of ways we catch bad guys that don't involve tracing their every move.",
"Sometimes they do. But it's very rare for there to be a complete, unbroken chain of cameras from the scene of the incident to the suspect's home. Some business owners are unwilling to cooperate with police, or only keep their camera footage when a crime occurs on *their* property. Logistically, it is very difficult and time-consuming for detectives to go through many different types of surveillance footage, which all have to be manually retrieved from the business, all use different software, and are all keyed up to slightly different clocks. As a matter of evidence, some judges at trial may require the person who owns each piece of footage to come testify in court. If you have 15 different shop-owners, none of whom are being paid to take multiple days out of work to come testify, it can present a real challenge to coordinate all of those witnesses (think about herding cats), and can make a trial that might ordinarily take just a couple of days to drag on for weeks. In the end, most robberies are committed on foot, and most robberies that are prosecuted involve a suspect who was apprehended at the time of the incident, at or close to the location where the robbery took place. Complex \"heists\" involving accomplices and getaway drivers do happen, but they're comparatively rare. The majority of robberies, at least in my experience, don't need to be \"solved.\" The person who did it is either caught very quickly, or not at all."
],
"score": [
7,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6v7o5l | Why do books about things that couldn't possibility ever happen need a "any similarities to real persons is purely coincidental" disclaimer? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dly84h9",
"dlya0w7",
"dly9a1x"
],
"text": [
"Ass covering. That said, just because events in a book cannot ever happen doesn't mean there can't be a similarity to actual people. i can write a book and include a werewolf called... say Drump, who incompently leads a pack of werewolves, oh and he had a tiff with a weird hag called... Billary. Meanwhile there is also a good wizard Ibama who combines both black and white magics... okay, my point is, obviously the fantasy elements are never going to happen, but clearly there is resemblance to real people in what I am writing. A great number of fantasy books have contained references to real people and events, usually historic.",
"Ass covering as people have mentioned - but theres a specific case which gave rise to all these various instances of people being afraid of being sued for the content of a fictitious work. URL_0 This film is basically the reason they exist - certainly for films, and I'd bet that the disclaimer migrated from films to books as a result of the exact same fear. There's legal precedent, and that makes it much easier for future cases to get through the legal system, hence why disclaimers are smart",
"The act of self protection in the eyes of the law is needed in many cases. As you write acts of \"fiction\" many people in history have claimed to be the \"Source\" or \"muse\" of this fiction and have been harmed by it in some way. Think if... Adolf Hitler had not become the Tyrant he was, however was painted as so in The Diary of Anne Frank or other texts as if he was? This would be slander in the form of print, which is Libel. Now we know, Adolf Hitler was a Tyrant and Dictator, so those statements would hardly be detrimental to his image, however if he was not, he could have claimed that they were. For someone more mundane, say... Abraham Lincoln and he was a vampire slayer, this would no doubt be a fictional story using the likeness and image of a living or previously living person. By including that statement, it covers the author in a layer of protection to allow them artistic freedoms to \"change\" things about someone and make them a character in a story without the threat of being prosecuted for defaming the target of their story or the antagonist created. This has been done many times through history, one of the gaming equivalents is Rockstar Entertainment, who has survived several litigations of this very nature. This time it was [Lindsey Lohan]( URL_0 ) who claimed that the character of Lacey Jones was based on her likeness. There were similar lawsuits regarding [Call of Duty's portrayal of Manuel Noriega]( URL_1 ) and even stretching the other way for likenesses used for promotional reasons without compensation like the NCAA's licencing of College Athletes [Seen Here]( URL_2 ). The difference between COD and the NCAA games however is that COD and Rockstar claimed that similarities are purely coincidental, where the NCAA games specifically bank on the namesake and marketability of the players that are being portrayed. Thats why Lindsey Lohan and Noriega's family got kicked to the curb, where the NCAA had to bite the bullet. Fiction, is only fiction, until someone else believes it is fact. Then it's as real as anything else written on paper, and is only worth the belief that it is true regardless of evidence to the contrary."
],
"score": [
48,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasputin_and_the_Empress"
],
[
"http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-09-01-lindsay-lohans-grand-theft-auto-lawsuit-rules-in-rockstars-favour",
"http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/28/tech/gaming-gadgets/manuel-noriega-call-of-duty-lawsuit/index.html",
"https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-athletes-react-on-twitter-after-receiving-ea-sports-lawsuit-checks/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6v7spt | What is white knighting? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlyb4sx",
"dly8mjq"
],
"text": [
"Saying someone is \"white knighting\" is an accusation that they are inserting themselves into an argument or situation for the sole purpose of trying to look good and win points with people. It's saying that they are just \"trying to play knight in shining armor.\" It also often means someone who jumps into \"defend\" someone who didn't ask for or want \"defending.\" However, like any buzz-wordy insult it gets thrown around all the time. On the flip-side of true \"white knights\" you also have true assholes who accuse anyone who calls them out as \"white knighting.\"",
"A white knight is someone who tries to protect the princess. On the internet, it's usually some virgin protecting some moral code without having any experience of life hardships, preaching some \"tolerance\" without having any grasp on the context. Typically, these people live in an imaginary world where they elaborate an imaginary imagerie of some topic and try to defend that against people who experience that topic in real life and know what they're talking about, and that not everything is as great as people think it is. One good example would be weeaboos who have an idealistic view of Japan and think that any foreigner who dates a Japanese girl is \"taking advantage of her\" because he is \"a predator and a player\" that \"doesn't understand and respect her culture\", or that kind of shit."
],
"score": [
11,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6v8fem | Why hasn't life on Native American reservations improved? Why is drug and alcohol abuse still so rampant? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlyecgb",
"dlyjbc2"
],
"text": [
"On most Native American reservations, there's no particular need for anyone to work or improve themselves because the combination of federal funding and casinos gives everyone a 'basic income'. The result is a situation where large numbers of people just depend on that money and make no attempt to better their lives. If you happen to be born into such a community, you never really have role models for any other way of living so it's rare that people growing up there try to make anything better out of their lives. Those who *do* attempt to better themselves tend to leave the reservation behind - further compounding the problem of young children having no role models. All of this is further heightened by the simple fact that most Indian reservations are located in remote areas where interaction with the larger world is limited.",
"It's important to note that reservations are generally located on land that the US didn't want, so Native peoples were moved from their (large) traditional territories to much smaller, inferior spaces -- spaces that also have very little access to infrastructure, are geographically challenging, etc. \"Indian removal\" policies also sometimes displaced Native peoples vast distances, into wholly new climates, and forced new ways of living, often antithetical to the ways of life that had been practiced for generations. Add to that the policies of educational programs designed to provide Native children White education while eliminating all traces of their prior culture, the situation has been fraught, to say the very least."
],
"score": [
14,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6v8pqr | how did comedy became different in different cultures? Why is British humor full of double entendres and American humor yelling that something is a thing? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlyhe9k"
],
"text": [
"Laughter is much more effective as a group activity, and like the other comment has stated, it's more of a regional trend on what's funny and what's not. If you get a bunch of Americans together and a bunch of Britains together in the same room and put 2 comedians, both specializing in each comedy type, most people will laugh even if it's not necessarily extremely humorous. Also it may be down to the cultures. British culture is generally viewed as a more sophisticated one, while America's culture is of a more simplistic one. If you go into a comedy club and fart into the microphone, most likely more Americans will laugh than Brits."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6v9oap | How did the "th" sound turn into "s" in German speaking countries. | How did the phonological sound of "th" turn into an "s" in some of the German-speaking countries? At school, we were taught to put our tounges between our teeth, in order to create that sound. Over the years that somehow turned into an "s" (e.g think - > sink). Myself being a native German speaker, I couldn't explain how and why this happens. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlyqkzs"
],
"text": [
"Wikipedia describes this as [th-alveolarization]( URL_0 ) > In rarer or older varieties of African American Vernacular English, /θ/ may be pronounced [s] after a vowel and before another consonant, as in bathroom [ˈbæsɹum]. > Th-alveolarization is a process that occurs in some African varieties of English where the dental fricatives /θ, ð/ merge with the alveolar fricatives /s, z/. It is an example of assibilation. > It is often parodied as ubiquitous to French- and German-speaking learners of English, but is widespread among many other foreign learners of English, because the dental fricative \"th\" sounds are not very common among world languages. French and German do not have the two 'th' sounds -- they are just not used to making that sound. 's' and 'z' are easier sounds to make instead."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronunciation_of_English_%E2%9F%A8th%E2%9F%A9#Dialectal_realizations"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6vbfwp | Why do we automatically dislike people who dislike us? | It seems if someone ever finds out that another person doesn't like them or says bad things about them, the feeling becomes mutual. I've actually liked people who didn't like me and had good things to say about people who said bad things about me, but for the most part that doesn't seem to be how we react. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlz8t62"
],
"text": [
"Most likely serves as defense mechanism for our ego. If we still liked people that dislike us, we would still actively try to be around them and involved in activities with them. Someone that doesn't like you usually isn't going to treat you well, the pain of which is multiplied due to your liking of them (as anyone who has been treated poorly by someone they care about can attest to). It is much less painful if our mind can respond instead with \"well fuck that guy, I hated that douche anyway\""
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6vc7dv | What caused America to turn out so vastly different from other modern day British colonies? | Everything from accents to city planning is radically different from England and it's colonies, despite having the same cultural nucleus. What happened? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlz3u2n",
"dlz4gga",
"dlz3i0f",
"dlz649k"
],
"text": [
"For one thing, the American revolution happened relatively early on in the history of the British Empire, so American culture has had more time to diverge from British culture. Where as Canada had continued British influence, even to the present day to some extent. Other colonies such as Australia and New Zealand didn't even exist at the time of the American revolution. I assume you are only really talking about places which were settled by large numbers of British people. India is a former British colony, but obviously very different as the vast majority of the population are natives.",
"The level of immigration to the US is quite different to other former british colonies in that virtually every country in europe was sending immigrants during the 19th century, and in larger numbers than england. If you look at a map of Largest Ancestry by census district from ~2000 you will notice the only districts that are predominantly English ancestry are in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. The rest of the northeast is dominated by italian and irish; and everything west of new york and north of the mason-dixon line is predominantly german, south is predominantly african, and the southwest mexican. When you have all these different cultures all learning english, the language is pared-down from its origin, and takes on elements of the native tongues. A lot of british terms are metaphorical/more nuanced in nature whereas in american english the terms for things are more literal owing to communicating across cultures. I'm reminded of an interview I saw recently with Edgar Wright (British) talking about communicating car terminology with his actors in his last movie and he kept saying \"shunt\" and no one knew what he was talking about, and he asked what you call it in america when a car rear-ends another; to which they responded, \"rear-ending\".",
"Americans speak mostly like they always have. It's the Brits that actually changed the way they spoke in the 1800's. They started teaching children at boarding schools how to be more posh and sophisticated. I don't know much about the city planning side of things.",
"With the exception of not being part of the Commonwealth and using slightly different spelling, the US isn't actually *that* much different than other British colonies. The main reasons stem largely from the fact that it gained independence earlier and it has a much more comprehensive constitution borne out of disagreements with the Westminster tradition (specifically a parliamentary system vs a republic), which was retained to a greater degree in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The more interesting point is that Britain and its colonies are largely different than the rest of the world. The Anglosphere is unique in its utilisation of common law, more cohesive international defence and security policies such as Five Eyes, greater emphasis on institution building than other European colonies, higher levels of immigration (the US is not as unique in this regard beyond sheer scale as Toronto, Sydney and Melbourne all have very high rates of foreign-born populations) and emphasis on symbiotic trade relationships rather than natural resource extraction in and of itself."
],
"score": [
30,
12,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6vdeyi | If species extinction is a natural process that's always been happening, why are conservation efforts such a big deal? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlzdw65",
"dlzfd4d",
"dlzh80u"
],
"text": [
"We are witnessing a mass extinction event right now, caused by human activity [[1]]( URL_0 ). Scientists estimate we're now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day [2]. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century [3]. The most extreme example are amphibians: The current amphibian extinction rate may range from 25,039 to 45,474 times the background extinction rate [4]. ______________ Sources: [1]: Ceballos, Gerardo, et al. \"Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction.\" Science advances 1.5 (2015): e1400253. [2]: Chivian, E. and A. Bernstein (eds.) 2008. Sustaining life: How human health depends on biodiversity. Center for Health and the Global Environment. Oxford University Press, New York. [3]: 2. Ibid. and Thomas, C. D., A. Cameron, R. E. Green, M. Bakkenes, L. J. Beaumont, Y. C. Collingham, B. F. N. Erasmus, M. Ferreira de Siqueira, A. Grainger, Lee Hannah, L. Hughes, Brian Huntley, A. S. van Jaarsveld, G. F. Midgley, L. Miles, M. A. Ortega-Huerta, A. Townsend Peterson, O. L. Phillips, and S. E. Williams. 2004. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427: 145–148. [4]: McCallum, Malcolm L. 2007. Amphibian decline or extinction? Current declines dwarf background extinction rate. Journal of Herpetology 41(3): 483–491. Copyright Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles.",
"Because we recognized a long time ago that there is a significant difference between natural extinction and man made extinction due to either hunting or more commonly due to ecosystem destruction. Since we are the \"unnatural\" cause of the extinction some people take efforts to reduce or reverse the damage we have done to a species that would not otherwise have been threatened. In addition we also recognized that without a certain level of diversity in the ecosytem, the entire food chain we rely on could collapse completely, leaving us struggling to feed ourselves",
"First, let's define what a \"natural process\" is. I'd define it as something that would happen without human involvement. You might define it differently, but for this conversation, let's think of it like that. So the extinction is something that does happen without human involvement. But it's also something human involvement can actually cause. So there's some extinctions that are natural and some that are not. It's like the death of a person. It's a perfectly natural thing, everyone dies some day. But if I go out to the street and shoot someone, that's not natural at all, that's murder. So if there's some kind of frog that lives only on a plot of land that I own. Then I build a subdivision on that land killing all the frogs. That's not a natural extinction, that extinction was caused by me, a human."
],
"score": [
10,
9,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6vdo2q | Why are there so many nazis in the US and russia? | I am from germany and allways wondered why there are so many nazis esp. in the USA and Russia. A lot of soldiers of both countrys died to defeat the third reich in WWII, but there are still right wing movements in these countrys that use the flag and other symbols of the nazi time like the ss runes and such. I can understand when some people say america first, but what drives citizens of the USA or Russia to wear even uniforms of the very foe they defeated under so heavy losses in order to stop hitler et all? Edit: Thank you all for your nice answers. i realized i blew it out of proportion with the "so many". I would like to thank /u/Miliean for his answer which remembered me to look at things from different perspectives in order to better understand them. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlzgwlk",
"dlzgdxs",
"dlzgu9r",
"dlzh99u",
"dlzr9pj"
],
"text": [
"There's not THAT many when you consider the number of people who do this as compared to the general population. They're just very vocal, so it appears like there's more of them. The next thing to think about is what those uniforms and flags mean to the people that wear them. It's very different than what it means in Germany. These people don't think of those symbols as symbols of a foe they defined in wartime and took many losses fighting. Those people see those symbols as symbols of white pride and white nationalism. Remember. Today we think of WW2 as this ideological war, but that's really not the case. The western powers were perfectly fine allowing Hitler to spout his rhetoric and kill his own people. It's that he invaded the rest of Europe that caused the war. So it's not that they really cared that he was racist it's that they cared when he infringed on their territory. It's even worse in the US. The US did not really give 2 shits that Hitler invaded Europe. They only became involved in that war when Japan attacked the US. Many would argue that the US would have gotten involved eventually anyway, but the fact is that the US got involved when they were directly attacked, not before. (other than some minor side involvement like providing planes to Canada). So today we think of WW2 as a war of ideology but the truth is it was a war of aggression. It's the aggression that the allied powers opposed not the ideology. So it's not super surprising that the ideology has lived on in the US through the symbols of the Nazis.",
"Well, there's actually not. But open societies are going to have more of any extreme and outlier, because they *can* be there. Why would you be somewhere where you cam be punished for your beliefs?",
"There are not \"so many\". There are a few, perhaps a few thousand in the US. That's like 0.001%, it's a lot closer to \"none\" than \"many\". That's only 5X as many people as are struck by lightning. However, the US has protected free speech, and you can say \"I am a Nazi\" without the government harming you. You can't run over people that disagree with you, but you are free to claim any view you hold.",
"There arent. Compared to the peak that there once was, they are a sliver of a fraction of what they used to be. When you see something on the news, its because *it doesnt happen every day*, but since this is a controversial topic and attracts more viewers, they keep it playing for weeks. Now everyone thinks that this country is full of white nationalists because 'thats all Im hearing about on the news these days\" same as when we disproportionately worry about terrorists attacks instead of the things that we actually should be worried about.",
"By what definition of \"Nazi\"? If you're talking about the people that go around waving tiki torches and preaching right supremacy, there's not a lot of them, just the past election has emboldened them to be more public and embolden the alt-left like groups like the so-called \"antifa\" to go out and add gasoline to the fire. If you're talking about what the left calls a \"Nazi\" (I guess this is the prefferred term nowadays as opposed to the \"racist\" term we heard before and immediately after the election)- anyone that voted for Trump even if it was because he promised to get their job back or disagrees with them the slightest bit politically, then there's a lot of \"Nazis\"."
],
"score": [
19,
17,
9,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6vemi2 | What is profanity? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlzn5ub"
],
"text": [
"It started as a taboo towards showing disrespect towards something that required reverence AKA Religion, Politically, Astral beings/people/things. I guess it just kinda evolved from all that into people (Most English profanities have German or Latin roots) deciding over generations what things around the planet deserve their own special words and deserve better than some words."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6ves50 | Why are so many of the world's greatest classic rock bands from England? What were the influences at that time and when did their rising popularity start to decline? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlzzn9h",
"dlzv0m8"
],
"text": [
"Well, it might have to do with the fact that England makes some of the best amps in the world.",
"Two reasons. 1. The Beatles. They were HUGE, and seemingly came from nowhere. They became the most popular band in history, and inspired many small time bands and musicians in England to try and go big as well. 2. Empire. GB used to basically rule the world, and a lot of the world took up parts of British culture because of it. This probably allowed a band like the Beatles to have success a lot faster, as most of the world was already attuned to the British taste in music and art."
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6veti2 | Why cannot Americans born in US territories vote for president? | I'm Canadian and any notable differences or parallels between American and Canadian territories would be cool to know as well. Cheers. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlzours",
"dlzpz22"
],
"text": [
"Quite simply; because we don't vote for president. We vote for electors, who then, a month later, actually vote for president. Article 2 section 1 of the US constitution states: > 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. So there are 538 electors (435 from house, 100 from senate, and the 23rd amendment gives 3 to DC) who vote for president. Americans in US territories can not vote because they don't live in a state. (A state could theoretically, allow territory citizens to vote in the state election by state law. The constitution says states get to decide how they give out their elector votes.) It would take a constitutional amendment to allow Puerto Ricans representation.",
"That is not correct. Americans born in Puerto Rico are US citizens, and if they move to one of the 50 states or DC, they can vote for president. The electoral college selects the president. Per the constitution, only states get electors. Later on, an amendment was passed to give DC electors as well."
],
"score": [
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6vfgl6 | how does a celebrities non disclosure agreement protect them when a person decides to break it? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dlzu27j"
],
"text": [
"The person who decided to break it is now being sued by a celebrity. A lawsuit which can cost them a lot of money, depending on what amount the celeb believes the leak cost them in damages. It's a protection via incentive. People don't want to get sued and have to pay a lot in settlements or legal fees."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6vg6gq | When could the United States debt become a major issue for all citizens? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dm00ctn",
"dm019lm"
],
"text": [
"Not soon. Our national debt is only about equal to our annual GDP, depending on how you measure it. URL_0 We could start paying it down if we wanted to, and certainly can afford the interest.",
"Considering that MOST of the debt is actually owed to the citizens... it's not really the international big deal that it seems. URL_0"
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt"
],
[
"https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-debt-3306124"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6vj4ai | Who decides what words mean what in every language? | For example. There is a translation for thank you in almost every language but who decided in each language what the word is? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dm0kq1l",
"dm0ri04"
],
"text": [
"Nobody. Languages arise and evolve spontaneously. In cases where the languages share a root language the translation is generally obvious. Spanish \"Gracias\" and the Italian \"Grazie\" both evolved from the Latin \"Gratias.\" They share the same root language family. Latin itself evolved from even earlier languages spoken by the people who eventually settled Rome. English is a \"Germanic\" language and shares many word roots with German and Dutch.",
"The speakers of each language determine its words, but how translations work is as follows: * Languages A and B come up with their own terms for a particular thing. Language A calls it \"apple\" and language B calls it \"pomme\". When speakers of the languages come into contact, they can point to the same thing and give their name for it. \"Pomme\" is therefore the French translation of English \"apple\", and \"apple\" the English translation of French \"pomme\". * The speakers of language A invent a new device or process and give it a name. Speakers of other languages encounter the device or process and, needing a name for it, borrow the word from language A, sometimes adapting it as required to fit their own language, or prefer come up with their own name. Thus English \"computer\" (in the modern sense) is \"computer\" in Italian (no change), \"компьютер\" in Russian (changed to fit the language's alphabet or script) and \"ordinateur\" in French (a different word). * The speakers of language A give a name to a custom from their culture. This custom does not exist in the culture of speakers of other languages, so they have no need of a word for it. If they need to translate it, they use a form of words instead. So Spanish \"sobremesa\" is translated into English as \"time spent after lunch or dinner socializing with the people you shared the meal with\", something that is not an English custom. Such words are often called \"untranslatable\", even though there are translations for them & mdash; they are just phrases rather than single words. You can find loads of lists of these so-called untranslatable words online."
],
"score": [
12,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6vn90x | What is controversial about athletes kneeling during the National Anthem (objectivity appreciated)? | From what I remember, the initial outrage was that it was disrespectful to the troops, but then it was explained that it was to show solidarity for victims of racist violence or something, I'm not exactly sure. Can someone give me an objective explanation of what both sides feel about this issue? Thanks | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dm1ivo6"
],
"text": [
"Traditional decorum is to stand during the national anthem and face the flag. Some athletes are kneeling during the national anthem as a form of protest, which is perceived as an insult to the nation because it violates that social norm to respect the national symbols. The athletes say it is justified because it brings attention to an important topic, police violence against ethnic minorities, and that if it doesn't go addressed then that *should* reduce respect for the national symbols."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6vof9c | The difference between an Empire, Kingdom, Duchy and Republic. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dm1swsk",
"dm1th90",
"dm1w32c",
"dm27did"
],
"text": [
"A republic is not like the other three at all. They are not ruled by a monarch, but rather by elected officials. Now that that's out of the way, the other three are very similar but of different ranks. Emperor is as high as you can get as a monarch, and usually but not always is a collection of nations ruled by one nation, which is not to be confused with one person being a king of multiple nations. An emperor might have kings under his command. A kingdom is lesser than that, with a king as the leader and generally has dukes under the king's rule. One person can be king of multiple kingdoms without being an emperor though because the kingdoms are still technically independent and only linked by their king. A duchy is less than a kingdom, and usually not an independent state. Most duchies are parts of larger kingdoms with dukes listening to kings. That being said, there is an absolute ton of overlap, it's complicated, and the differences are mostly in the name.",
"The difference between an empire, kingdom, principality, caliphate, sultanate, and duchy is primarily the title of the monarch; emperor (or empress), king (queen), prince(ess), caliph, sultan, or duke (duchess). There are slight differences between type of monarch, but they also overlap in many cases so I don't think the differences are really that important. A lot of times it's purely a matter of translation. A republic is a form of representative government.",
"There are some great answers here, but a more li5 version: Have you ever heard of a county before? Like Orange County, or Cook County? A town and some farmlands, or just an area of urban land? A man who has a castle and rules over a county is called a Count. Like Count Dracula or the Count of Monte Cristo, a Count collects taxes. If he has more than one castle in his county, the ones he doesn't live in are ruled by Barons, usually with the castle and a small bit of land around it for farming and training. Republics typically only have Barons, if they have nobility at all. The cities select rulers from among the wealthy elite, and they manage laws and affairs. Counts fight one another, and, like on Game of Thrones, force each other to bend the knee, swearing oaths of loyalty and pledging to march to war at their lord's command. If you're a count who has other counts sworn to obey you, you're called a Duke. Dukes do the same, and the man who rules dukes is a King. The man who rules other Kings is an Emperor, or sometimes a High King.",
"What prevents an independent Duchy who is ruled by a Duke or Grand Duke from becoming a Kingdom?"
],
"score": [
36,
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6vojt4 | How do sons and daughters of top politicians (presidents) end up in top schools? Are they coincidentally exceptionally talented or is there a roundabout way? | Malia Obama is going to Harvard, Chelsea went to Stanford, George Bush went to Yale. So is there a quota or recommendation from top donors thats at play here? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dm1tniy",
"dm1te4z",
"dm1vbcq",
"dm1tohc",
"dm1v320"
],
"text": [
"Nothing complicated here. Most top schools admit whoever they please -- and having an extremely well-connected family is a huge plus to their admissions committee.",
"I'd assume money plays a pretty big role. More money means that tutors can be hired for every subject which helps the student to generally perform better in school. Also the promise of donations likely makes schools more interested in having these \"privileged\" students.",
"There are 2 main explanations: 1) there are various ways to turn someone into a better, smarter student, thus making them more likely to win admission. Tutors, elite private school education, world travel, exposure to more information and words from a younger age so that the student is raised in a rich educational environment with constant care by multiple adults, excellent health care, excellent emotional care and nurturing, nutritious food, and no exposure to things like lead paint. Tutoring to improve scores in standardized tests like ACT, SAT, etc. will almost always raise your scores, making you a better applicant. And then, wealthy people will hire admissions consultants who guide their kids through the admissions process--basically, writing their essays for them in many cases, helping them choose schools, get letters of recommendation from important people that say all the right things, creating impressive portfolios, as well as advising them throughout their high school years in doing and saying the right things. Parents might pay $100,000 for this service. And $1000/hour to notable tutors. That's for the 0.1%. Less wealthy people might not pay those amounts, but they might pay $100/hour to get better results, and $30,000 for these college admission advisors with proven track records of getting their advisees into top schools. 2) bribery and influence peddling. For example in a 2006 book, *The Price of Admission*, author Daniel Golden researched how Jared Kushner got into Harvard. A good but not brilliant student, he did not appear to be Harvard material. But Golden traces a large donation made to the school by Kushner's father, and how shortly thereafter, Kushner was admitted to the school. Since Harvard doesn't reveal any admission information, it's impossible to say there was a *quid pro quo*, but given the details, the conclusion that Harvard agreed to admit Kushner in order to form a relationship with a wealthy and influential benefactor, seems pretty strongly indicated. FYI: this is not a politically partisan comment--it was written about years ago, before any Trump political career and before he was linked with Ivanka. That said, there's evidence that Malia Obama and Chelsea Clinton are both extremely intelligent and might warrant admission to those schools regardless of their parents' fame. And Malia has the additional advantage of being a 3rd generation Harvard student--her father and grandfather both have degrees from Harvard. In George W. Bush's case, he was not the greatest student. His father, on the other hand, was an exceptional student. But regardless, admissions standards at Ivy League schools when W. was admitted were not as stringent as they are today. His family connections and family history at Yale (W. was the 5th generation of Bushes to go to Yale) helped a lot. And his father's connections likely helped him to get into Harvard Business School after his lackluster academic performance elsewhere.",
"The big reason is that having the children of famous politicians attend helps the prestige of the university. They will make exceptions for those kinds of students because in the long run it helps their bottom line. Beyond, the children of wealthy, high profile politicians are going to have every resource at their disposal to succeed, and are going to be highly encouraged to use them. It is a lot easier to get straight A's when you have tutors at your disposal, not to mention maids and cooks and gardeners.",
"It's an accepted form of bribery: if the parents contribute to the school - either financially or by using their power to further the schools interests - the child gets accepted. This isn't illegal because private universities can accept whoever they please, but they don't exactly advertise it either because it would cheapen the university's reputation: if you can just buy admission instead of earning it through skill and ability, a degree from that university is no longer a guarantee of skill and ability."
],
"score": [
70,
19,
14,
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
6vq7p5 | After the US Civil War ended, how did the Union ensure that the former Confederacy was not continuing to hold slaves? One would assume there was continued resistance to emancipation; did the Union go from town to town, farm to farm? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dm25agb",
"dm292e6",
"dm2aouc"
],
"text": [
"Most of the Southern states did not rejoin the Union until about 10 years after the war. During that time, they were placed under military occupation. The purpose of this, among other things, was to guarantee the rights of newly-freed blacks. Of course, when the troops left the Jim Crow era began and blacks in the South lost many of those rights again.",
"Two words: military occupation. Federal troops were deployed in Southern states until the late 1870s, tasked with enforcing federal law.",
"The US put the entire south under military occupation for roughly 10 years in what what known as \"reconstruction\". The army literally went about checking to make sure slaves were free."
],
"score": [
16,
11,
11
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6vqpv9 | why is it men in business in 2017 can not wear shorts - seriously? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dm26yuj"
],
"text": [
"They are considered informal. No matter how nice the shorts are, they still won't look professional. Even if you have crazy nice legs that you shave, it's not a solid look, and you can't really pair it with anything nicer than a polo shirt without looking like a rich person on vacation in Hawaii."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
6vrg84 | Why are there dialects/accents based on geography but no similar thing for handwriting? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dm2hph0",
"dm2fjwk"
],
"text": [
"There are a few things here and there that might be considered \"regional handwriting\". For example, the numeral 7 with a horizontal line through it is more common in the Europe than in the Americas. Here's a [random link]( URL_0 ) that talks about it. Not a great authoritative source but it explains what I mean. Anecdotally I've noticed that the capital cursive G is commonly written a certain way in the US (the way it gets taught in school, all above the line) whereas British people often write it more just like a large lower-case G (where the tail dips below the line). An extreme (although perhaps not totally analogous) example would be the differences between simplified Chinese writing used in Mainland China (PRC), and the traditional Chinese writing that remains in use in Taiwan and Hong Kong. The reason it's not totally analogous is because that change was a top-down reform implemented by the PRC government; it didn't occur naturally.",
"People already all write differently, and unlike spoken language, how someone else writes isn't shared socially or locally. Also you've constantly got the 'standard' alphabet you're copying constantly reinforced and that's what you learn from. People don't write like their friends write, they learn to write things the way they appear in the samples they're shown, and those are going to be pretty universal. Like I remember being 6 and you'd have a classroom with printed pictures of like Aa Apple then the script Aa again People learn from those standard forms."
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/62586/why-is-1-hand-written-without-a-serif-and-7-without-a-dash"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.