Brandoflores

I think for this situation: It depends what you mean by communism. If we're talking about any type of planned economic system with some sort paramount government dictating markets and little to no private property, well yes that was tried many times (Russia, China, Vietnam, etc.)

But if we're talking about establishing a political and economic system that accurately followed the sequence of the Marxist Dialectic under the Orthodox Marxist premise of a bottom-up international revolution, well that has never actually happened. To be fair, Marx was a great critique with an enormous impact on modern social science, but his solution to capitalism weren't always grounded, forcing future socialist states to depart from Marx's original vision.

Both China and the Soviet Union's rise to power came with changes in their Marxist doctrine, creating their own version. Leninism established the Vanguard party which safe guarded the revolutionary agenda and were basically gatekeepers to keep the proletariat in check and prevent any sort of dissonance within the party. Leninism also introduced nationalism to the revolutionary mix despite Marxism's scope on an international revolution.

So yeah Communism has been tried but many variations are still untested. It ain't easy establishing a theoretical political system when Capitalism encompasses most of our daily experience.

Facebook is so cartoonishly bad it's almost as if they don't care about how the public perceives them.

-It is absolutely not a hot take to say "Facebook = bad", its almost a given considering their history of controversies and their ongoing blunders.

-The increasing scope of Facebook's now parent company Meta has influenced the general public to some degree; whether it's through trapping its users into a political echo chamber, or by affecting the mental health of its Instagram users.

-This is due in part to the platforms mechanisms and algorithm with its fundamental purpose being influencing and altering people's moods and behavior

-This controversial business model of altering the emotions of its users encourages mores likes on publications and posts, clicks on more ads, and more time spent on the platform. The way this affects your mental health has been reported multiple times, including the arguments posted above^^^.

-Facebook's latest announcement; the introduction of the "metaverse" has been characterized as dystopian capitalism to the point of satire. Having a cooperate-controlled metaverse is straight up the antagonistic premise of Snow Crash, the first book that coined the term metaverse. It's almost as if Facebook read the book and said it be a good idea to play the antagonistic role as part of their business practices.

-Even its most loyal investors think the metaverse is not the best idea. Roger McNamee, one of Facebook's earliest investors, told BBC News:
"It's a bad idea and the fact we are all sitting and looking at this like it's normal should be alarming everyone."

-You almost have to ask, are Facebook higher-ups aware of their terrible public image? perhaps Mark Zuckerberg lives in his bubble and is unfaced by critics and public opinion. Maybe they are aware of how dangerous they are to society but they don't care since at the end of the day we still log in to use their platforms.

I disagree but it depends how we define as "Civility". If civility means making sure fallacies are in check and having an open-minded attitude towards the propositions given by the opposition, then civility is a requirement for any proper discourse. Living in a world filled with arbitrary arguments and ideological tribalism, perhaps most of us need practice some civility in our heated discussions.

However, being overly civil to the point of avoiding offense is not preferable either. We must be clear in making our point across and not be afraid to disagree with the opposition.

TL;DR - Coding is an important skill to have and students should learn about it early on

Learning programming in early primary education can have several advantages. If done correctly, coding can put children through experimentation builds, helping them understand sequencing skills, counting, problem-solving, logical thinking, cause and effect, and critical thinking. Additionally, children can find expressive avenues through code and learn to create games, apps, and websites or to even control robots and machine learning.

Introducing coding and programming students early on to children will help them feel more comfortable with computers and information technology. Programming should be added to the list of skills schools need to expand on to help students expand their career potential with learning a foreign language and ethics in history.

Mental illness is not a stable concept over time because it means what it means to be normal changes. Whatever constitutes being mentally ill depends on society's values in whichever period in history.

Mental illness is presented as an ahistorical concept that anyone in any period of history could experience. However, these are just our modern concepts and treatments developed through our relationship with mental illness and our definitions of normal/abnormal. There is an assumption of linear progress in the history of mental illness due to all our scientific breakthroughs. Although we can admit that technology and treatments have improved, our definition of rationality and criteria to determine success defines that progress.

For example, insanity had a vague definition in the late Middle Ages and was not treated systemically; people who consistently acted out of their wits or even people physical conditions like leprosy were expelled out of the city or placed under the care of citizens. Madness and insanity were seen as punishment by God without any medical context. Therefore people with epilepsy and leprosy were considered part of the same category.

Attitudes towards insanity slightly changed during the Renaissance in some parts of Europe as insanity was perceived as a form of wisdom or rediscovered knowledge for ancients. They were interested in understanding a person going through God's punishment as they reflected a form of divine wisdom.

The Enlightment turned insanity and mental illness into silence as they were seen as a threat to reason and reasonable people, rather than individuals punished by the hand of God. Many nations in Europe went as far as confining and repressing mentally ill citizens (curable or un-curable) into dungeons, gallows, iron collars, and prison cells, along with the poor, sick, and idle. These 'mad houses' were not rehabilitation facilities but prisons to hide them from reasonable and rational society. The rationale for this was to revert society's moral errors by punishing these groups of people into learning to live moral and reasonable lifestyles.

The way we view and treat mental illness has to with our society's values and the meaning of rationality. Modern values in our society lean more towards curing or rehabilitating mentally ill people into more normal lives and having more compassion towards them. However, what we consider normal and rational changes; not so long ago being homosexual was considered a mental illness, and even a women not accepting her gender role would've been considered a mental condition. Medicalization of behaviors formally considered normal has increased within the last 20 years. Not saying any of this is a bad thing; it perhaps is a good thing, but it's certainly something that rarely gets questioned.

TL;DR - Deplatforming celebrities and public figures can work, but it depends on the context and the type of base.

Since deplatforming is synonyms with the term canceling, the concept is thrown around online like rapid-fire even for minor controversies making some skeptical whether we should cancel public figures.

This leaves us with a spectrum with one end of the population believing that society should punish and deplatform public figures more frequently, and on the other believing deplatforming is censorship and does more harm than good. In the middle, we have the general majority who believes deplatforming is needed but only for specific actions that would be considered worst of the worst along with proof of ill-intent. These actions generally are racism, sexism, pedophilia, sexual misconduct, physical abuse, etc. Effective deplatforming (most of the time) happens when the general majority believes a public figure has done the worst actions.

Kevin Spacey, Joss Whedon, and Harvey Weinstein were all effectively deplatformed, and their careers concluded in ruined. However, context also plays a role in preventing someone from getting deplatformed.

An example of this is Johnny Depp, who reversed his cancellation after being accused of physical abuse towards his former partner Amber Heard. In this case, the context was that Heard was also accused of being abusive towards Depp, backed up with multiple accounts and witnesses. Heard's base thinks Depp was still abusive and refuses to take responsibility for his actions; Depp's base believes Heard orchestrated this to get money from Depp and support from the public. The public now perceives this being mutual domestic abuse rather than Depp being the sole perpetrator. Although Depp is not generally supported by everyone today, it's safe to say he didn't get effectively canceled as his career goes on in upcoming movies. (Needless to say, I don't support anybody in this case)

Deplatforming a public figure could also depend on their base since standards change depending on the audience. Compare James Charles, who lost millions of followers for being accused of not advertising her friend's beauty product in 2019, to Pewdiepie, who used Nazi imagery and anti-Semitic humor in 2017 and gained 50 million subscriptions on Youtube the following year. Deplatforming someone effectively means the base must stop showing their support.

Difficulty increases with larger niche bases, and this is why political officials are tricky to deplatform if they are populists against the status quo like Donald Trump. He has a large base against the status quo and condemns whatever he considers liberal social values (This is why he gets away with being racist and not wearing masks). Since there's a split in the general majority in the United States and Trump's base values are opposed to whatever is considered proper social behavior, no amount of racism and sexism would've canceled Trump.

TL;DR – Snyder's original version of the Justice League is significantly better than its theatrical release. Although it's a 4-hour long film, it really shows us what the 2017 Justice League could've been without all the post-production changes under Joss Whedon.

The original justice league that hit theaters in 2017 was considered a critical failure in the box office, with critics scoring the film at a 40% on Rotten Tomatoes 45% on Metacritic. However, after nearly three years of protest and petitioning from fans for the release of the original Justice League envisioned by Zack Snyder, it was finally released last week through HBO MAX, and it certainly did not disappoint.

The four-hour and the 2-minute film was a stark difference from the 2017 theatrical release with a much darker and grim tone, a complete change to the plot, newly added scenes, improved special effects, and additional storyline developments to characters like Cyborg, Steppenwolf, and Flash. Overall, the film has mixed reviews over its length and grim tone but significantly improved with a 73% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Snyder was the original director up to post-production of the film but had to step down after his daughter's death, resulting in Joss Whedon taking over the role of director. Fans and the Justice League cast were highly critical of Whedon's (involvement and changing several aspects of the film)[ https://variety.com/2020/film/news/ray-fisher-joss-whedon-justice-league-1234695831/]. He rewrote the script, added reshoots and other changes that added a brighter tone with more humor, and cutting the runtime down to 120 minutes. Warner Bros executives ordered these changes to make the film more watchable and sellable. However, this resulted on the contrary since the film didn't break even at the box office. After much protest by Snyder and fans, the film's original cut was released along with additional footage.

The film has an unrestrained Snyder tone: desaturated visuals, using slow motions to emphasize action scenes and iconic imagery, and exploring the tragic nature of heroism through a gloomy perspective on superheroes. The film could be considered the opposite of the more light-hearted Marvel films. Although logical plots is not Snyder's style, it was an overall improvement from the plot presented in the theatrical release.

The consumer being right all the time would be the most broken ability in society, and that's why it's certainly true. I believe the term was true if it means taking ownership of a mistake that the business was accountable for, but customer culture assumes it also means being accountable for any slippery slope.

I believe living up to this expectation can be harmful to any business since wrong, clueless, or abusive customers may expect unrealistic treatment from employees. Working conditions and company culture play a major role in keeping employees happy, productive, and efficient, so businesses should strive to keep both the customer and employee satisfied. I mean, Forbes magazine did say it may be time to change the slogan to "the customer is sometimes wrong."

TL;DR - We have no choice but to bite the ice cream, as it is irrational to waste our days licking.

Biting ice cream is not only the best method for consumption without any messy casualty; it's also a demonstration of your will. Prolonged ice cream will surely melt, and doing the slow licking techniques from the past will make this outcome inevitable.

The licking method of consumption is hardly rational but calculating the risk and net loss is simple: Average single scoop of ice cream is $2.79 (USD) and the average melting time is between 10-30 at room temperature therefore you only have a limited time to enjoy optimal consumption through the slow licking process, but let's be honest no one is that fast. If it takes you longer than 30 min to lick ice cream on its entirely, it's over; you might as well have suffered a net loss of $2.79 on your bank account.

This is without considering the surface area due to the quantity of air in ice cream; a higher surface area means that the ice cream will melt faster. The amount of sugar is also critical as it solutes in water, resulting in sugar and other solute molecules lowering the freezing temperature of a solution. Therefore, if you bought the ice cream with the most sugar and the highest surface area, you might as well give up as it basically completely melted by the time you start licking.

You must bite the ice cream; it's your only choice. As Nietzsche use to say, "Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they want their illusions to be destroyed" This could sure be true about the ice cream lickers.

X-Men was a good franchise or even underrated in some instances. However, they have numerous development flaws, and their plot is inconsistent. Although they can successfully create a grey area antagonist like Magneto, most of their villains are still very one-dimensional.

The X-Men franchise is pretty good. After all, they helped revive the superhero genre in the early 2000s. One could argue they're the reason for the evolution and success of big blockbuster superhero movies. Several of their movies like X2 and Logan are extremely underrated, considering they were an overwhelming critical success. Most movies aren't bad either, except a handful of movies like X-Men: Apocalypse, The Last Stand, and Dark Phoenix.

However, X-Men had a lot of flaws, some we can look back in hindsight understanding that the superhero genre was under development, others are just bad decisions made by 20th Century Fox:

1. The narrative of the story focuses only on Logan, Professor Xavier, and Magneto.
Although the themes and storylines are well written, they usually revolve around these three people's perspectives without diversifying into different characters. This delegitimizes the importance of Cyclopes and Storm, who are as important to the story. Though they are important characters in the comics, the movie franchise rarely attempts to diversify they're focus into other characters. When they do, there is always so little effort on character development (Ex. Jean Gray). They could've focused on Storm's upbringing in Africa or Cyclops's orphan to leadership background.

2. They have too many inconsistencies.
It's difficult to make sense of the X-Men universe since it's hard to keep track of all the plot holes. We see two versions of Emma Frost, who are not the same age or person since one is captured in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and the other is killed after X-Men: First Class. It is a similar issue with 1980s Angel, a villain in Apocalypse, and 2000s teenage good guy Angel in The Last Stand. Logan also seems to have a selective memory because he sure remembered WWII pretty well in The Wolverine, but this also makes zero sense considering they built entire movies around the idea that Wolverine doesn't remember anything before joining the X-Men.

3. The timelines and the characters are a mess
Although First Class was successful, the rebooted characters' personalities and motivations are different from the original movies and the comics. Mystique is basically a different person in every movie (no pun intended), going from under-the-shadows villain, to wallflower living under Xavier's thumb, to powerful woman proud of her identity, to leadership role fighting for good, to hiding her identity again for no reason, and so on. Cyclopes, William Stryker, and Storm are also part of this messy change of motivations.

While the Avengers has its fair share of one-dimensional villains, not all X-Men villains are 'Killmonger' complex. Apocalypse is pretty straightforwardly one-dimensional, while Vuk in Dark Phoenix is at best two-dimensional since she wants revenge, so they're comparable with Ultron in the MCU.

Then we have villains motivated by the greater good, but they're methods would make them borderline sociopaths. Boliver Trask's motivation In Days of Future Past was security and humanity's survival, but the creation of the sentinels was unprovoked; he just rationalized his opposition to mutants and was probably triggered by every scientist ridiculing his research. William Stryker in X2 sounds complex but really is just a traumatized man by the power of his own son; therefore, he needs to kill every mutant in one go.

TL;DR - Russia has meddled in past elections in both the U.S. and Europe to undermine democracy; therefore, the U.S. should combat fire with fire to send a message across.

It is no secret that Russia and Iran interfered in the U.S. elections in 2020, and this comes as no surprise as they also meddled in the 2016 elections. Although Russian was not explicit nor direct in its interference in the voting process, they relied on a lot of mudslinging and disinformation. It's not rare for Russia to interfere in elections; they meddled in the the 2017 French Presidential election, the 2016 Brexit referendum, The 2018 U.S. midterm elections, and Ukrainian elections in more than one occasion. The intelligence community has concluded that in both 2016 and 2020 Putin's government was trying not just to elect Donald Trump but to sow distrust in the U.S. political system.

Second, elections are just one of the many things Putin's government gets away with. No matter what Russia does—poisoning a defector, sending aid to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the U.S. responds with sanctions, and that is clearly not proportionate and is useless at deterring their behavior. There are several policy responses the U.S. can do about this, like sending a daily text message to every Russian about Putin's corruption or simply making a list of all the things Putin needs for his regime's survival and threaten to hold them at risk. Whatever the approach, it's safe to say the U.S. is justified in doing something about this situation.

Yeah, that's fair. I was more or less thinking of it in terms sowing distrust among his citizens, kind of like he is doing to us. I didn't specify elections because after the Navalny situation, I doubt anyone else can get elected but Putin, even with major populist support.

Yeah the west always has fingers pointing at Russia but sanctions are not deterring Russia, therefore we need to send a message.

TL - DR; If your music is not marketable to a large audience or seems too weird, you won't be nominated at the Grammys. The system is pretty rigid and favorites popular artists.

The Grammys are totally overrated. It's kind of odd watching them because they don't have a consistent method for choosing nominations. They try to nominate critically acclaimed albums along with popular albums one year, and then the next year, they go solely with mainstream popular artists and ignore everyone else who had a better album. Even when they try to nominate something closer to critically acclaimed, they always stay within marketable 'safe zone' artists. Some of the most critically acclaimed albums according to Metacritic that had a huge impact and were totally ignored by the Grammys:

• (2009) Kid Cudi - Man on the Moon
• (2010) Kanye West - My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy
• (2014) Swans - To Be Kind
• (2017) Tyler the Creator - Flower Boy

The system is generally pretty arbitrary: If your name is Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, Eminem, or Adele, you can more or less guarantee you will be nominated for album of the year even if you have a flop of an album. Even with generally popular genres, there always seems to be some sort of bias against black artists. In the case of Beyoncé, she has been nominated numerous times. It's pretty ridiculous that she still hasn't won; even Adele, who won the album of the year in 2017, claimed Beyonce should've won the award.

White rappers are also way more likely to be nominated for album of the year. Both Macklemore and Eminem have been nominated an unusual number of times compared to their African American counterparts. The Grammys would've nominated Macklemore for every single award if they could back in 2014; he even felt bad when he felt he was stealing awards from Kendrick Lamer who in many ways had the superior album that year.

You can check out this video, this channel explains the situation pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30KWximi-Ss&t=1s

Taxation is one of the most important elements of any economic system; shortcomings usually come from a specific tax policy or where funding is allocated. Overall, having taxes is more favorable than getting rid of taxes.

Even within an imperfect tax system, the revenues provided by taxes strengthen, not weaken, a nation's economy. The purposes of taxes are to fund essential public goods and services, including highways, schools, biomedical research, national parks, military services, and even indirectly, create private wealth. Although you have to contribute a certain amount of money, the result is to allocate funding to essential national needs for the greater good.

There is a fair share of arguments against the purpose of taxation, or at least problems with who must contribute, how much one must give, and how funding should be allocated. The purpose of taxation makes sense when mentioning the good stuff like services, but people do not obtain government benefits and still pay taxes. In that case, the main motivator to pay your taxes is plain and simple: you will go to prison if you don't.

This is where ideologies like anarcho-capitalism argue that if all public goods and services should become private, therefore only those who needed the service would pay for it (like a subscription), instead of being threatened to go to prison for not paying for a service you don't even use. If everyone gets to pay only for the goods they want, services can more efficiently meet consumers' demands.

The problem with this approach is the difficulties that come with paying for indiscriminate goods: streetlights, emergency services, military services all could result in a costly amount, especially since you wouldn't use these services all the time and people can benefit from them for free. If you're paying for a streetlight, you can't stop another person from using it while driving at night. A private army employed to protect an individual's assets in an area may indirectly be protecting other parts of the community or the area. In both these situations, no one would want to foot the bill for an expensive good that others can indirectly consume for free. Therefore, public goods funded and regulated by institutions that are not motivated by profit are generally needed.

Mainstream politics and ideologies are not against taxes, but argue how much should the government take and for what purpose. The economic right believes that the right to tax income is inalienable, or at least should be used to fund only by the absolute necessity of providing society's basic requirements, such as infrastructure and rule of law. The economic left tends to value making society more equal and providing a basic standard of living above the good of letting people keep their own money. Both would not publicly agree with the same tax policy, but both would agree taxation is needed to maintain basic government functions.

TL;DR - Freedom of expression is always valid for an educator but it may become problematic if it undermines or discredits a school subject (Ex. Climate Change, Evolution).

It may be difficult to say if it’s okay to share your political opinion in every situation as an educator. As a general rule, everyone has the freedom to express their political views, but some circumstances may affect the quality of education given to students.

This example is out of personal testimony, so I’m not sure how rare this case was. So in high school I had a science teacher who didn’t believe in evolution and labelled the topic as “false science”. Eventually she was forced by her higher ups to teach evolution to the class and she did, but not before making her political comments against the school district and on how church and state are both equally responsible for the truth.

In this case, because of an educators religious/political views, the class was unable to learn about a evolution without its political context. Although a teacher was entitled to her political/religious beliefs, presenting them in this fashion undermines the importance of scientific inquiry.

TL;DR - Celebrity culture became more politically opinionated over the last few years, and this is not necessarily a bad thing, but this can lead to further polarization.

I agree that as citizens, celebrities should express their political opinions, though I understand the pressure that comes from being a public figure in this situation. This goes back to the concept of empire celebrities and post-empire celebrities. Back a few decades ago, the standard was to be an empire celebrity or to maintain the perfect celebrity image and not to say anything offensive or political. This worked perfectly back when the paparazzi business was primitive and political issues weren't as polarizing; celebrities like Ronald Reagan and (partially) Arnold Schwarzenegger became successful celebrities and later politicians because their success relied on presenting a perfect image, while political views were secondary.

However, with the rise of popular entertainment channels and later social media, celebrities are now more watched and popular than ever. Having this perfect image now seems fake, and the new "real" became authentic and honest about what you think. This is how we got to the current "post-empire" trend; celebrities are now expected to show who they really are and not being afraid of sharing their beliefs, hobbies, and experiences. Each celebrity stands for something religious or political, and that reputation now follows them: Kaepernick (BLM), Ricky Gervais (atheist), Mark Ruffalo (Liberal), Clint Eastwood (Conservative), Emma Watson (Gender Equality), etc.

This is not bad by any means. I believe this is a great opportunity for important causes that don't have much media presence. But the consequences also have to be considered because public figures standing for political causes can contribute to polarization. Conservative celebrities are very marginalized in Hollywood and can even be targeted for beliefs they may not even have, like what happened to Chris Pratt a few months ago.

Celebrities can also use their platform and political opinions to elevate themselves irresponsibly into political positions; the best case is Donald Trump, who, unlike Reagan and Schwarzenegger, never had political experience in any way, and his beliefs were borderline conspiracy theories.

Celebrities have a lot of influence, which can be dangerous if they promote conspiracy theories and sway their base into misinformation. Case in point: B.O.B and flat earth.

TL;DR - Undoubtedly, reality television has had a large impact on entertainment, and it's undeniably entertaining. But there is nothing real about it; these shows rely on novelty and drama, which can mislead the audience into making them believe it's actually real.

Reality TV is good nor bad generally. Its popularity, revenue, and growth into different subgenres, including cooking competitions, celebrity lives, and professional career contests, have left an impact on entertainment. Whether it's your preference or not, saying it's poor entertainment would be an unfair statement since these shows keep impacting the modern trend and mainstream society.

But the problem with reality television is how simulated it is. It's not "reality" in any way, and many of these TV shows are soft-scripted or are informally directed by the behind-the-scenes crew. The contestants and cast are measured by how much attention they get or how good they look. The worst part of all is that these shows are misleading and make us believe they're actually real.

Gordon Ramsey is undoubtedly an all-star chef, but he receives frequent criticism for his reality shows because they're not actual reality and being a chef isn't as chaotic as he makes it out to be. The Bachelor, The Bachelorette, and all their copies aren't real love, it's just a bunch of better-than-average looking adults placed in extravagant booshie locations that will have a 11%-31% success rate on their relationship.

These shows are totally entertaining, but they're almost no different than a scripted drama other than making us believe they're somehow real and spontaneous. Many of the cast and contestants of these shows get a lot of clout and attention afterward through social media and somehow use it to springboard their careers like the Kardashians and Paris Hilton. It certainly gets you a lot of popularity and attention even in politics because, as we all know Donald Trump was a reality TV star who owes much of his political success to his TV show The Apprentice.

Pluto was arbitrarily labelled a ‘dwarf’ planet, due to education/political reasons and not due to scientific criteria.

Michel Foucault once argued that a scientific discourse and their conceptual structures are not the simple product of an objective study of phenomena but is rather the product of systems of power relations struggling to create fields of knowledge within a society. The way we organize and theorize science is generated from a complex relationship between science and politics. Mere observation of a phenomena isn’t enough to legitimize objectivity, it needs be mobilized by a certain power or influence to establish boundaries and avenues to define and direct all possible choices and outcomes.

Pluto, our faithful 9th planet, was declassified and designated the arbitrary label “dwarf planet” not because its lack of merit as planet, but because of the complex yet political conversations that happened in that 2006 IAU conference. The dramatization and concern by the IAU came from the discovery of several planets much larger, including Eris led to the arbitrary classification. However, this process of changing Pluto’s status was not conducted strictly through scientific criteria on what constitutes a planet, but rather it was decided over a democratic vote, which is probably not the best way to classify scientific concepts.

Planetary scientist Dr. Alan Stern expressed his concern over the issue:
“Voting is a terrible mechanism of doing science […] We don’t vote on the theory of relativity. We don’t vote on quantum mechanics. The image of the IAU taking a vote was the single most damaging pedagogical event in science in probably a century, because to many people it was easy to reach the conclusion that science is arbitrary or political, which it is not.”

Its no rumor that the purpose of the IAU in creating a new definition was to limit the number of planets in our Solar Systems so that school kids wouldn’t have to memorize long lists of planets. Most planetary researchers ignore the IAU definition preferring to use a more geophysical definition:

1. It has enough mass (and therefore gravity) to be round.
2. It has insufficient mass to undergo nuclear fusion in its interior.

TL;DR - Meghan Markle is straight up toxic, and Harry is a mess as well. Though I would put my money on Philip dropping the ball on this one.

I sure got you with that outrageous tl;dr. If I'm completely honest fairly uneducated on this issue, but it has popped up all over my feed for the last week. It's rather concerning to see how politicized this issue has become and how everyone is already taking a side on the matter, yet there is so much left unanswered. As an American who cannot possibly keep up with British tabloids, so I have a few questions as an unassuming spectator:

Who was being racist?
This is my biggest problem; we don't know who to target or was being racist. I absolutely believe we should investigate the royals if someone committed a racist act, but as of today, I still don't who we're talking about. I feel Meghan and Harry were alluring to someone in particular, but they never gave any details on the interview. The lack of detail gave the impression that the whole royal family was guilty because everyone is a suspect. Maybe this is a systemic issue of outdated practices, or maybe Meghan and Harry want us to think all of them are racist; who knows. Lack of detail leaves too much room for assumptions, and no one can verify the facts.

What's with this notion of protecting the Royal image if they were probably racist?
I get political commentators wanting to protect their country's institutions. But it's a totally plausible situation, these sound like serious accusations. Of course, I'm talking about Piers Morgan.

Why is it wrong to criticize Meaghan?
This is probably what makes this situation so contentious. It almost feels impossible to argue against her claims because she was so miserable and wanted to end her life. Not saying we shouldn't believe her, though I do think we have to question her intentions considering how questionable her approach was and how much baggage she has.

Why is the monarchy so secretive about this?
Again, is there any investigation being done?

Why did they decide to talk about this in an interview with Oprah?
Does expressing this with Oprah solve the issue? Or does it fire up more hate?

TL;DR - Lincoln never claimed to be an abolitionist, and his political stances tend to be indifferent towards the abolition of slavery, yet he also contradicts himself many times and took the most steps by any president on ending the practice of slavery. There were wheels within wheels in his situation, and nothing is straightforward about Lincoln and the issue of slavery.

It's no secret that Abraham Lincoln was not the most passionate supporter of abolition here in the United States. One could've argued that issuing the Emancipation Proclamation was intended to be a complex military measure and never intended to abolish slavery. Lincoln's towering historical image makes us believe he was this moral and pure abolitionist figure, but this was never the case, but I don't think we need to discredit Lincoln because the answer is not so straightforward.

There is a strong consensus that Lincoln's personal beliefs have always been against slavery and believed slaves deserved certain unalienable rights [1] [2]. However, Lincoln in politics is where things get more complicated.

Lincoln himself never claimed to be an abolitionist, but he always considered himself anti-slavery politically, meaning he was against the expansion of slavery. Pro-slavery advocates around the 1850s were attempting to expand to the west along with the institution of slavery, and with the profit coming from the invention of the cotton gin and railroads, they had the mobility and financial incentive to introduce it to new states. Having an anti-slavery stance meant you could regulate the expansion of slavery and come to an agreement with the pro-slavery politicians to contain the institution without abolishing slavery [3]. I'm not justifying Lincoln indirectly supporting the institution of slavery, but considering how abolitionists were unable to compromise their noble "free them all or nothing" approach, I can understand he was trying to do this practically.

Although I agree that the issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation was due to fugitive slaves, it wasn't necessarily because of the number of slaves but the political dilemma. Union Generals during the American Civil War didn't have a procedure for captured slaves, some liberated them, and others treated them as contraband of war, and both of those things were problematic [4]. Lincoln couldn't do either because that would mean he would have to recognize the rebelling Confederate States as an independent nation (which would've caused a diplomatic mess) and wouldn't be able to consider them a rebellion. But if they were a rebellion, runaway and captured slaves wouldn't be returned to rebels since a law prevented that [5]. Therefore, the proclamation was issued as both a military measure to suppress a rebellion and a political statement to shift the tone of the war in the North from "stopping rebel groups" to "a war to end slavery."

Another issue with Lincoln is that he can be a contradicting president because his moderate stance on slavery becomes more liberal and indistinguishable from abolitionists. For example, Earlier Lincoln opposed Black suffrage and equality (if liberated), but as president, Lincoln advocates for the right to vote and welfare and education to recently freed slaves. We can argue he was doing this for popularity, but during this period, the majority of Americans just wanted the war to end, even if it meant without freeing a single slave.

Black abolitionist Fredrick Douglass explained Lincoln's contradictions in an 1876 speech, expressing he was in a complicated situation as he needed to be moderate to keep the loyalty of his people to fight the war before ending slavery:

"his mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from slavery. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to the [Confederacy] impossible." [6]

Lastly, The Emancipation Proclamation alone doesn't show Lincolns efforts, and he never had the authority to end slavery directly, but it's the small steps he takes that show how he ended slavery where he could:

-March 13, 1862: Lincoln signs legislation bans returning fugitive slaves to their owners.

-April 16, 1862: Lincoln signs a law banning Slavery in Washington D.C.

-June 19, 1862: Prohibits slavery in U.S. territories.

-January 1, 1863: Emancipation Proclamation comes into effect

-June 1864: Endorsed the 13th amendment to the constitution abolishing slavery. Signed into law on January 1865

On a side note, we have to distinguish between the Black population, mostly slaves at this time, and Native Americans. Although both groups were extremely oppressed, slaves were viewed as property and part of society in their own right and eventually liberated, but Native Americans were a different issue and not the same community.

Natives were in constant conflict with colonial expansion, which by today's standards, was not justified, and that's why the Dakota tribesmen situation can be a complicated dilemma. Lincoln ordered the execution of Dakota tribesmen who were involved in the murder of 400 settlers and forced hundreds of families to flee the area. This became a contentious issue, and there was public pressure to execute all 303 natives convicted, but Lincoln only ordered the execution of 38 natives. Again, I'm not defending the execution, but considering Lincoln became unpopular for not executing enough natives, received mob justice threats, and rumors circulating the Dakota were allying with the Confederacy, it seems he was trying to be as just as possible [7].

[1] Letter to Albert G. Hodges
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/hodges.htm

[2] Abraham Lincoln
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#Republican_politics_(1854%E2%80%931860)

[3]Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120216125903/http://old.nationalreview.com/books/owens200403251139.asp

[4] How Slavery Really Ended in America
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/magazine/mag-03CivilWar-t.html

[5] Living Contraband - Former Slaves in the Nation's Capital During the Civil War
https://www.nps.gov/articles/living-contraband-former-slaves-in-the-nation-s-capital-during-the-civil-war.htm#:~:text=This%20term%20meant%20that%20once,they%20were%20classified%20as%20property.&text=Because%20of%20Butler's%20actions%2C%20a,aid%20the%20Confederacy%20in%20anyway.

[6] Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln
https://web.archive.org/web/20110427050628/http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=39

[7] Abraham Lincoln - Native American policy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#Native_American_policy

TL;DR – Practicing self-reflection and examining the consistency of our own beliefs is just as useful as arguing about arriving at a true proposition and is also needed to justify our conduct and beliefs.

In modern society, arguments and debates tend to be conducted to arrive at a true proposition or for pure rhetorical competitions. When we see someone arguing about anything, it's usually to determine the truth or falsity of the statement or convince an opponent and/or spectators that your argument is true or favorable. However, arguing for only these reasons removes the ethical need to examine one's beliefs and the truth behind our own thoughts. Before arguing any withheld belief, we must engage in self-reflection and examine our own rational discourse's consistency to justify our lives and conduct.

Socrates and other ancient ethicists understood that caring for oneself was to exhibit an attitude toward oneself and others and society, attend to one's own thoughts and attitudes in self-reflection, and engage in ascetic practices aimed at realizing the best version of ourselves. We must not aim to be right about our propositions as much as we need to be consistent about our own way of thinking. This is particularly recommended for political beliefs and arguments; many people support inconsistent ideas to their own way of living.

An example of this would be an anti-vaxxer claiming to live a healthier lifestyle and refusing to take a vaccine, which would cost several lives. Anti-vaxxers clearly do not hold much consistency in their arguments; therefore, if we promoted a discourse that recognized the need for self-examination on our beliefs, it would prevent many fallacies from fact/rhetoric-based arguments. Anti-vaxxers can always argue to arrive at a truth proposition by using case-by-case arguments on the potential side effects of vaccines, and they can also argue in terms of rhetoric convincing spectators by using misinformation.

TL;DR - BMI is very limited. Its normal to have a high or low BMI and still be healthy, and it doesn't take into account family history or habits.

Yeah I agree, the BMI frequently misclassifies health. Its very usual to be considered overweight but also having a healthy cardiovascular profile.
We should recognize that BMI itself is not measuring general health or a physiological state like resting blood pressure, or any state that indicates the presence of disease. It is simply a measure of size using your height and weight.

Its actually counter-productive in my opinion. Plenty of people have a high or low BMI and are healthy and, compared to many people with a normal BMI which are actually unhealthy. Theoretically, a person with a normal BMI who smokes and has a family history of cardiovascular disease may have a higher risk of early cardiovascular death than someone who has a high BMI but is a physically fit non-smoker.

Bottom line is that as a single measure, BMI is clearly not a perfect measure of health, it has limitations.

Works Cited

[1] How useful is the body mass index (BMI)?
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/how-useful-is-the-body-mass-index-bmi-201603309339

TL;DR - Apprenticeships are a good idea to reduce unemployment in the United States, but much work needs to be done at the state level before making the apprenticeship system work.

As my professor used to say, "it's the college craze!" has avoided apprenticeship to reach their full potential in the United States. They seem to not be as popular here as the college dream. Since the U.S. has trouble implementing education policy at the federal level, apprenticeship programs' success relies on the state's educational structure.

Finding an apprenticeship can be difficult as they're highly competitive and come with immense pressure once you're in [1]. There is little collaboration between schools and apprenticeship in the United States despite the past three U.S. presidents promoting the idea. Some states like Colorado and South Carolina have actually implemented successful apprenticeship programs that bring students and industries together, similarly to how college enrollment departments collaborate with high schools [2]. Benefits to industries and mentors include $1,000 tax deductions per apprentice and training not usually offered by other apprenticeship programs [3].

However, without an implemented program in every state, young workers will have difficulty obtaining an apprenticeship. Here in the state of Idaho, most mentors and businesses pick older candidates with related work experience unless there's some agreement with a technical college or a high school program. There's still plenty to be done at the state level before apprenticeships can be promoted as a viable option.

Works Cited

[1] Apprenticeship or Technical School: What's Right For You?
https://www.lincolntech.edu/news/industry-news/apprenticeship-technical-school

[2] Why are apprenticeships a good idea that have never really taken off in the U.S.?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/12/22/why-are-apprenticeships-a-good-idea-that-have-never-really-taken-off-in-the-u-s/

[3] Proposal 7: Expanding Apprenticeship Opportunities in the United States
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/expand_apprenticeships_united_states_lerman.pdf

TL;DR- In more recent times, subcultures are being commodified at a faster rate making them more accessible to the general public and intergraded into the mainstream.

Subcultures (or communities) are basically everywhere nowadays; whether you are a gamer, sports fan, skater, or vegan, everyone has a subculture nowadays, or at least at one point identified with one back in their youth. But many of these subcultures are going through a process of commodification, or the transformation of goods, services, ideas, nature, personal information, or people into commodities or objects of trade [1].

Many subcultures understandably rely on a level of financial investments like cosplaying, which is understandable, but I'm not talking about those types of commodities. I am referring to the transformation of a subculture into a product you can buy or profit from in a way that was not intended. The most notable example of this is the commodification of the hipster/indie style and their preferences and symbols. A decade ago, being hipster/indie meant rejecting the mainstream and living a more ironic lifestyle, but it really didn't take long before they were swallowed by the mainstream media and turned into some joke, and remnants left of their fashion have become Walmart-level of mainstream.

The process of commodification is not only ending trends more quickly by making them more mainstream, but it's also making them accessible to the point of meaninglessness. For example, purchasing the expensive goth attires without being goth is a trend of its own; looking like a goth/emo no longer means you listen to heavy music or are part of any other things associated with the subculture. If you have the money to afford to look like a goth, you can be goth [2].

This may seem harmless, but some subcultures do have important origins and rituals. Tattoos, piercings, and other types of body modification used to be a subculture of their own in the 1950s. Only poor males living in impoverished socio-economic conditions had tattoos and were part of that subculture. Over the years, body modifications became associated with the rejection of modernity and the counterculture movements of the 1960s-1970s as a symbol of resistance. As these rebellious trends from the subculture become popular to the general public, mainstream culture reclaims the trend and uses it to generate further demand for the culture and consumer industries [3].

The mainstream culture does not interest in the origins of expression behind these tattoos; they're just taken as a style that could be generalized, torn from its precise contextual meaning. This integration and commodification of body modification erased their origins by reorganizing workshop practices, markets, regulating technology, and formalizing occupational career permits and processes [3].
Subcultures becoming mainstream is not a new concept, but the accessibility of the internet and mass social media interconnectivity makes this happen much quicker. Again I don't think this is good or bad—this is just a general comment.

[1] Commodification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodification

[2] Reddit: Controversial question! Do you believe that someone can be goth (fashion, interest, aesthetic wise) and not enjoy goth music?
https://www.reddit.com/r/goth/comments/ahy1yz/controversial_question_do_you_believe_that/

[3] Modified People: Indicators of a Body Modification Subculture in a Post-Subculture World
https://www-jstor-org.uidaho.idm.oclc.org/stable/pdf/44016774.pdf?ab_segments=0%252Fbasic_search_gsv2%252Ftest&refreqid=excelsior%3A747c18dfe58bea780d3b85ae74081021

Yes, Its the efficiency of e-commerce, the increasing interconnectivity of social media, and the quick access to all information that make trends, subcultures, and novelties die quickly. The out-group and in-group boundaries are so blurred its more difficult to identify subculture membership.

I could buy punk clothes, read a Wikipedia article on punk history, and listen to all relevant albums in less than a week and then call myself a punk.

If I was a bit more wealthy I could start a rapping career through Instagram just by hiring someone to produce a trap beat, investing on video production, and paying for ads targeted at the suburban youth. (yes this is actually a thing)

The commodification process perhaps makes subcultures and trends more democratic and available, but its torn from its original context.

But I don't know about memes. I noticed that's the one concept that is difficult to commodify. The concept of 'memes' is just too abstract and versatile, and they tend to mutate into different forms within days. Meme dictionaries can help us understand trends but its difficult to use memes like a tattoo or an outfit, or a community because memes are on a state of continuous multiplicity.

For example, the Karen meme his different origins, some say it comes from the haircut, other say it comes from entitled suburban middle age women, and now it could just be any white woman with racist tendencies. You can't commodify a Karen into a product like the 'stonks' memes or cat memes because it has mixed messages, its a critique on entitlement and also comments sexist towards middle age women.

No costumes, no presents, some get a day off, and a random bunny. Here are the top 5 reasons why Easter is the worst and least charismatic holiday.

1. The extra-long church services.
Childish complain , but still valid. No matter who you are, no one enjoys sitting through two hours of an Easter vigil, and there's also no way you're still happy having to get up the next morning.

2. Bunnies.
Sure they look cool on T-shirts and as taxidermy, but rabbits are crap pets. Ever have one as a kid? They do basically nothing cool besides eat and shiver whenever you try to pick them up. So why are they associated with Easter? I am so unimpressed by them I can’t even be bothered to google it.

3. Too much religion to remember.
Admittedly I'm not religious though I gladly enjoy the spoils of Christmas and Easter. It does make me feel bad though since I really should do some research and learn the significance and difference between Palm Sunday, Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter Sunday and Easter Monday besides one of those days being someone's day off. Easter implies research therefore not good.

4. We're literally stealing a pagan holiday, again.
Well, Santa Clause is not alone. It turns out Easter actually began as a pagan mega-festival celebrating spring in the Northern Hemisphere, long before the advent of Christianity. People have celebrated the equinoxes and the solstices as sacred times for centuries before the holiday was associated with Christianity.

5. Easter is basically a holiday created by capitalism to sell you more chocolate and greeting cards.
Hot take, but here we go. The Commercialization during the 19th century saw the rabbit trend take off becoming a popular symbol of Easter. Big companies at the time, like Cadbury in England, started manufacturing chocolate eggs. Card companies like Hallmark became big by launching cute images of little rabbits and Easter eggs on the cards.

Sources

[1] 5 Reasons Easter Kinda Sucks
https://www.theodysseyonline.com/bunnies-shouldnt-wear-floral-dresses-its-just-unnatural

[2] It's time to face facts... Easter is the worst holiday
https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/courier-archive/opinion/its-time-to-face-facts-easter-is-the-worst-holiday-3027635

TL;DR – It's no secret that Karl Marx has a bad reputation, but aside from his controversial solutions, his analysis on the problems with capitalism is still relevant today. A large portion of our political discourse and policy can be credited to Marx.

Everyone is aware that Karl Marx's name can be treated like a curse word in the west outside academia. Referring to Marx in any discussion can invalidate your entire argument and associate you with edgy liberal beliefs. There is a stigma with mentioning his important contribution without saying how wrong he was about communism, workers revolt, and the USSR. It's common to read an article or watch a video on Marx's relevant concepts and criticism on capitalism, and at the end, the author always mentions how all his contributions will never make up for all his wrongs [1] [2].

After what the world went through during the Cold War, it is understandable why there is such hatred towards Karl Marx, but talking about Marx or even taking his relevant contributions seriously doesn't make someone a Marxist. In many cases, we use Marxist analysis and Socialist solutions without even being aware.

Whenever you hear Factory workers complain about companies outsourcing jobs, Marx already wrote on this topic: workers are expendable to companies, they will hire workers at the lowest price possible to accumulate the most profit [3]. When conservatives advocate for creating high-paying jobs and liberals for increasing the minimum wage, they are both experiencing alienation; spending long hours in a tedious, bleak, low-paying job that alienates them from their true self, only living for a few hours to eat and sleep. It is hard to find someone who wouldn't advocate for fulfilling jobs and a decent wage.

The entire notion of government intervention is related to Marxism and Socialist movements at the time [4]. Today, most economic systems are not purely free-market; almost all of them have some government intervention mechanism on behalf of the public interest and those in need. Workers' compensation, safety regulations, and social security benefits for the elderly became popular policies after Marx (and later Labor movements) criticized factory owners for terminating injured and unproductive older workers with no security net [5]. Marx also analyzed slavery, child labor, historical materialism, colonial exploitation influencing future academic fields and policy.

Marx was an important figure, and it's easy to see why he still has a bad reputation in history. However, he is far from being the only historical figure with a consequential and equally controversial legacy. Like Marx, Martin Luther perpetrated a movement that killed millions of Europeans in religious conflicts that lasted over two centuries. J. Robert Oppenheimer and Albert Einstein, both amazing physicists, also contributed to nuclear weapons and the Cold War. I'm not saying Marx's bad ideas on revolt and communist governments are justified or correct. However, if we can talk about Albert Einstein's contributions to the theory of relativity while ignoring his involvement in nuclear weapons, then we can ignore Marx's proposed solutions to capitalism and talk about his critical analysis of problems with capitalism which are still relevant today.

[1] What Marx got wrong is more important than what he got right.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/05/06/what-marx-got-wrong-is-more-important-than-what-he-got-right/

[2] Was Karl Marx right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMmDebW_OBI

[3] Karl Marx: The Economics of Power
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/may/09/karl-marx-part-6-economics

[4] Economic Intervention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_interventionism

[5] The Communist Manifesto

TL;DR - Overall, the free market system doesn't necessarily lead to freedom in every case, and its activities could end up being a total disaster.

Not all activity within a free market is associated with the amount of freedom people have. This depends on what specific activity we are talking about. If we use the word freedom as in economic freedom, which include rights such as private ownership and "freedom of contract," these are associated market liberties and can increase a country's political freedoms. However, free-market systems don't always achieve other types of freedoms; Singapore and Hong Kong, for example, have very few political freedoms but have plenty of economic ones and have solid financial institutions. Free markets are also not required for economic or GDP growth, which is most visibly demonstrated by the rise of China [1].

A very free market can also generate many issues that may do the opposite of increasing your freedom. Consider The 2007/08 financial crisis was a consequence of freeing the economy through unlimited financial speculation. To put it very shortly, the trans-economics of speculation were argued to be exacerbated to the point of parody, and hence the bubble bursts. Although unlimited financial speculation doesn't directly affect freedom, the effects of recession do by limiting purchasing power, increasing unemployment, and so on [2].

[1] Economic Freedom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_freedom

[2] Baudrillard and Neoliberalism
https://baudrillardstudies.ubishops.ca/baudrillard-and-neoliberalism/

TL;DR - History is way more important than people think, and it's used frequently in other academic fields and professional purposes. It's critical for our education, but the way educational institutions present history limits its scope and ability to explain our present issues.

History is largely underappreciated. It is a very broad academic field that is often used more often than we think. The meaning of history is often underestimated because of the way it's presented to us. We associate the term with educational content or a nation's narrative, but history is also used for different purposes:

• Business analytics and inspecting historical trends and past business performance.
• TV shows and movies need to understand the basic historical conditions of a setting for movies.
• Genealogy and tracing relatives through historical records.
• Geography, but not only for political maps, but we also use historical records to examine the movement of rivers and glaciers, landform dynamics, and we can even predict the past by studying tectonic plates.
• Even graphic design, marketing, and advertisement rely on a history of trends to deliver a message.

I think the biggest problem with the notion of history is its presentation in secondary education. History is presented as this continuously progressive set of important events and ideas, but it's much more than just looking at a collection of national histories, scientific achievements, and large-scale conflicts. It's not only a discipline for understanding the past relating to the present but also one that seeks to understand the structures that shape us and how they came to exist.

For example, the history of democracy that most people are familiar with usually starts with the Athenian democracy and Rome, later revived in the North American colonies during the Enlightenment, and ultimately spreading around in the world in the 20th century. This narrative gives us the impression that democracy is historically important because it's related to Classical Greece, the Romans, and the enlightenment. However, this narrative doesn't say much about democracy relating to capitalism, the rule of law, or its visible relation to powerful economic actors. Government-run educational institutions prior to college tend to ignore these explanations. Economics and law in history tend to be presented as a set of self-evident principles with unquestionable objectivity and neutrality without much regard for its context [1].

Works Cited

[1] Democracies in Action: A Foucaultian Perspective on British and French Tax Enforcement
https://journals.openedition.org/erea/865?lang=en#abstract

TL;DR - The pandemic is not what's killing Cinema, large media companies are using it as an opportunity to get rid of independent movie chains.

I don't think your statement is false. Cinema was on the decline due to streaming services taking some market share recently. However, this decline is not natural, it's the result of Warner Media and Disney's war against independent movie chains. These big media companies have been aiming to take a good portion of the profit generated by theaters through streaming services. The pandemic allowed them to disguise the killing of the movie industry through "natural causes" [1].

Their apathy towards theaters is quite apparent and they tend to downgrade the importance of the cinema experience. They're more willing to sacrifice a large portion of their movie studio division to invest more on platforms like HBO Max and Disney+. It's just more profitable to cut off the distributor and distributing movies on your own, rather than splitting the profit with a middle man [1].

I don't think this is inevitable, but it certainly is happening. Movie theaters are not killed by innovation, they're getting killed by large media companies.

Works Cited

[1] Movie Theaters Aren’t Dying—They’re Being Murdered
https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/movies-streaming-covid-theatres/

TL;DR – The airstrikes ordered on February 26 demonstrated that Joe Biden is being held to a different standard by his own party compared to former president Trump who was praised after he ordered airstrikes in 2017. This can be both good and bad in the long run.

Whether you think the airstrikes authorized by the Biden administration are lawful or not, one thing is clear, he will not receive the same type of support that Trump got from military intervention. The retaliation against Iranian-backed militias on February 26 is comparable to the attacks authorized by then-President Trump in April 2017 against Syrian targets.

The majority of the general public reacted positively to the Syrian airstrikes in 2017 with the majority of news outlets writing favorably towards the military attacks [1] while most of Trump's base in Washington praised his hardline attitude. Even Democrats like Ben Nelson praised the president saying "I hope this teaches Assad not to use chemical weapons again" [2].

On the other hand, Joe Biden’s airstrike authorization triggered criticism from his base. Senators like Tim Kaine and Chris Murphy calling the attack unconstitutional, and others threatening to repeal the president's war powers [3]. Although polling data from the general public is not available, we can predict it’s not favorable considering I couldn’t find a positive reaction or any article in favor of Biden's airstrike (I may be wrong about this).

The easiest way to explain this difference in treatment is conservatives generally approve of bold foreign policy moves while liberals (and libertarians) are against military actions.

Regardless of whether you agree with the airstrikes or not, military intervention (even if it's authorized by Congress) is sometimes needed to combat terrorism and to protect interest abroad. It has both benefits and downsides, but this does not mean the president carrying the strike is a Warhawk if a threat requires this sort of intervention.

Like every other topic in politics, foreign policy decisions have been more polarized. Military options carried by Democrats like Clinton and Obama are not likely to be supported by Biden's base. Considering that most Trump supporters don’t like Biden, and most liberals don’t approve of intervention, the lack of public support may deter Biden and future Democratic presidents to use military options.

[1] Out of 47 Major Editorials on Trump’s Syria Strikes, Only One Opposed
https://fair.org/home/out-of-46-major-editorials-on-trumps-syria-strikes-only-one-opposed/

[2] A Polarized Political Response to Trump's Syria Strike
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/syria-reaction/522252/

[3] Biden’s Syria Strikes Fuel New Debate on War Powers
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/26/biden-syria-middle-east-strikes-new-debate-sanders-kaine-democrats-war-powers/

TL;DR - Weapon sales agreements don't create jobs, they just maintain few production lines running. Saudi Arabia and UAE are planning to create their indigenous arms industries to create jobs for their country, not for the American citizens. These weapons are used to wage wars on Yemen, and no amount of jobs should justify the death of civilians

Former President Donald Trump justified arms sales agreements to Saudi Arabia and the UAE as a way to create American jobs and saving production lines, but this is bad rationale for arms transfers on both economic and policy grounds. Arms purchases in the Middle East no longer have an impact on U.S. jobs as they did before.

This has been the case for roughly a decade because these Gulf Arab states now actually expect to use the weapons they buy. Saudi Arabia has been confronting Yemen and occupied the strategic island of Socotra in the Gulf of Aden. Because these sales are used for more than just defense purposes, these countries now want to create jobs at home. Both Saudi Arabia and the UAE are currently attempting to build their own arms industries [1].

So, in the long run, these agreements with the UAE and Saudi Arabia will likely take the form of a licensed production and technology transfer, and that would directly cut into U.S. defense jobs. All those arguments made by manufacturers and defense sector officials saying that we need to think about the millions of American mouths that are fed by mothers and fathers working in the defense sector are actually harming their industry more because these jobs are unreliable and will be taken by other countries soon [1].

Even if these arms sales kept production lines running forever, an extra job does not make a sale more or less strategically or ethically compelling. After all, the bombs in these transfers are causing excessive civilian casualties in Yemen. Saudi Arabia has spent a fortune buying arms from America to prosecute a war in Yemen that has killed almost a quarter of a million people [2].

Works Cited
[1] Biden Must Base Arms Sales on U.S. Interests—Not U.S. Jobs
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/25/biden-must-base-arms-sales-on-u-s-interests-not-u-s-jobs/

[2] It’s time to stop US arms sales to Saudi Arabia
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/02/04/its-time-to-stop-us-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia/

TL;DR - Cancel culture makes sense as social practice to keep public figures accountable, but people use this to ignite spectacle, therefore devaluing its meaning. Regular people try to cancel each other, but this really doesn't make any sense since it's simply the act of ignoring someone. You can't de-platform someone without a platform.

I think the situation with cancel culture started with good intent, but the term has been distorted recently and it became a form of compulsive yet absurd censorship. According to Lisa Nakamura, professor of media studies:

"canceling someone is a form of "cultural boycott" and the “ultimate expression of agency” which comes from a desire for control as people have limited power over what is presented to them on social media and a need for accountability which is not centralized." [1]

Cancel culture makes sense in this way because there is no way of making someone accountable for content, action, or opinions they promote. It's basically everyone de-platforming someone by ignoring their existence. When celebrities like Kevin Spacey and Harvey Weinstein did horrible things it makes sense to cancel them, and eventually the rest of the world catches on and fires them from their jobs and positions of power.

But cancel culture becomes absurd when people start targetting unpopular opinions, drama, and personal beliefs. One of the most recent victims of this is Chris Pratt because of his membership in a church that does not openly support the LGBTQ+ community and his conservative views, which he rarely talks about. Pratt never harmed anyone or discriminated against anyone, or even promoted his beliefs directly [2]. it's obvious he wants to keep his views to himself, and he is entitled to them.

Cancel culture became less effective since so many public figures have been canceled for absurd reasons, so now people just tend to forget about it. Its used for cheap accusations and spectacle for shortly lived headlines with almost no effects or consequences. Here are a few of the most recent situations I found:

-James Charles got canceled for some advertisement-related drama with Tati Westbrook, but he still has success in social media and his latest products [3].

-Demi Lovato got canceled for basically cyberbullying Selena Gomez via fake accounts. She currently enjoys a fair amount of media relevance and has an upcoming Netflix documentary [4].

-Recently, Elizabeth Olsen got canceled for an interview she did in 2015 where she used the term "gypsy" for her character. As we know, she has a highly successful show (Wandavision) on Disney+, so she is unlikely to go anywhere.

This makes sense if you are a public figure or a celebrity, but it becomes more widely used by regular people which then becomes less of a topic on accountability and more of a topic regarding polarization. Regular people are not required to have the same beliefs and canceling them because of opposing beliefs will not change them. Unlike celebrities, regular people don't have to be accountable to their fans and do not have a platform. It's a bit silly because ignoring people isn't canceling, especially if you're the only one doing it.

If the person means no harm, you should probably try your best to engage in dialogue with them and understand where they are coming from.

Works Cited

[1] Cancel culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture

[2] Why Is the Internet Trying to ‘Cancel’ Chris Pratt?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-is-the-internet-trying-to-cancel-chris-pratt

[3] An Incomplete List Of All Of The Celebrities 'Canceled' In 2020
https://www.pajiba.com/celebrities_are_better_than_you/an-incomplete-list-of-all-of-the-celebrities-canceled-in-2020-so-far.php

[4] 10 Biggest Celebrity 'Cancellations' of 2020 (So Far)
https://www.thethings.com/cancelled-celebrities-2020/

[5] WandaVision's Elizabeth Olsen is Latest Celebrity to Get Canceled Over Racism Accusations
https://epicstream.com/news/BriConstantino/WandaVisions-Elizabeth-Olsen-is-Latest-Celebrity-to-Get-Canceled-Over-Racism-Accusations

TL;DR - Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala is likely to be successful in dealing with the internal struggles of the WTO and COVID-19. However, there is uncertainty because of her lack of trade experience.

If we are talking about dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic and fixing the internal mess in the appellant body of the WTO, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala is an ideal pick. She is a professional when it comes to dealing with factions and handling the Nigerian economy erasing most of their external debt. She also recently served on the board of GAVI who focuses on vaccine distribution to developing countries. If that didn't seal the deal: she has over 20 years of experience on the World Bank as managing director [1].

However, the Trump administration was not meritless in choosing Yoo Myung-hee over Okonjo-Iweala. Yoo, currently South Korea's Trade Minister, is also a very accomplished woman nicknamed “the glass-ceiling breaker”. She had more experience within the WTO and was very knowledgeable when it came to negotiating with the U.S., China, and Europe [2].

I think Yoo's downside was that she was more focused on the trade reorganization after the pandemic while the world is still struggling to get out of it [3]. Not saying Yoo was not planning on dealing with the pandemic if nominated, but Okonjo-Iweala is a more rational choice since she already served on the GAVI board, and developing countries are likely to get the most hurt by the pandemic.

Uncertainties come from Okonjo-Iweala's lack of experience in trade and how she will deal with the China-U.S. trade problem. The Biden administration believes that the WTO is currently unable to deal with China's unfair trade practices, and the rest of the world is held to a higher standard [1]. She is likely to be more successful dealing with the WTO's internal struggles and COVID-19, but only time will tell.

Works Cited

[1] W.T.O. Set to Gain New Chief, but Deep Issues Remain
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/14/business/economy/wto-world-trade-director-general.html?searchResultPosition=3

[2] Yoo Myung-hee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoo_Myung-hee

[3] Director Myung-hee Myung-hee “The rise of economic nationalism with Corona 19… Respond in cooperation with middle-powered countries”
https://www.korea.kr/news/policyNewsView.do?newsId=148872586

TL;DR - GMOs have been massively successful at increasing food production and food security since the green revolution, but they also have a negative impact; environmental damage, inequality, and in some cases political and social conflict.

This is a difficult point to address due to both the necessity and the bitter consequences of GMOs. On one hand, the Green Revolution and the development of genetically altered crops were a massive success in terms of increasing agricultural production and crop resistance. On the other, biochemical companies and their practices are dangerous not only to biodiversity, but also to scientific, economic, and governmental institutions.

From a demographic standpoint, GMOs and other agrochemicals involved in the process impactfully reduced food scarcity which led to a population boom in both developed and developing countries. For example, the United States imported over half its wheat in the 1940s, and after altering crop genetics in the 1950s they became self-sufficient and became an exporter [1]. Big state-funded biochemical GM companies became predominant because of their ability to secure food production around the world.

Although most people would believe that GMOs can be dangerous because of potential long-term health concerns from genetic engineering practices, there's a wide scientific consensus against this claim [2] [3] [4]. Regardless of their positive impact and safety, they do have drastic negative consequences.

The negative impact comes from the inequalities and environmental damage created by the influence of GM companies. For example, studies show that GMOs can harm biodiversity and conventional organic crops, but governments are unlikely to take major actions because they prioritize food production and exports [5]. In the United States, GMO products don't require labeling due to GM companies' massive lobbying influence (so massive that Monsanto lobbyists were directly appointed to run the Food and Drug Administration) [6].

A greater concern than GMOs should the GM companies' authority on scientific and public discourse. Packed with executives, scientists, lobbyists, and high market demand; biochemical companies can shift public perception to get their way across resulting in unsurmountable damage.

For example, the green revolution and crop modification in developing countries are considered a huge success since more agricultural output led to faster development. Biochemical companies and scientists are portraited as saviors for introducing crop modification to the Punjab region of India saving people from starvation and setting in motion a population boom. However, historians and academics rarely talk about the corruption, ecological damage, political violence, and religious tension caused by the Indian government aggressively pushing for these agricultural advances [7].

So with that said, there is no reason for GMOs to be illegal, but they should certainly be more restrained or at very least regulated to reduce damage to the ecosystem and communities.

Works Cited

[1] History and Overview of the Green Revolution
https://www.thoughtco.com/green-revolution-overview-1434948

[2] American Medical Association (AMA)
https://www.isaaa.org/kc/Publications/htm/articles/Position/ama.htm

[3] Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods
http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf

[4] A decade of EU-funded GMO research
http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf

[5] Genetically modified food controversies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Biodiversity

[6] Obama Gives Former Food Lobbyist Michael Taylor a Second Chance at the FDA
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-gives-former-food-lobbyist-michael-taylor-a-second-chance-at-the-fda/

[7] The Violence of the Green Revolution
https://www.zedbooks.net/shop/book/the-violence-of-the-green-revolution/

I agree. Even academia of all places still lacks progress on making their services accessible. Universities and the public sector should cover accessibility considerations for people with cognitive and learning disabilities [1].

There is quite a lot of diversity within clinical definitions of cognitive impairments. Both dyslexia and hearing disabilities are permanent cognitive impairments while recovering from trauma and substance abuse are temporary cognitive impairments [2].

Unfortunately, people in the public sector are not familiar with these challenges. Common functional problems include difficulty with understanding content, remembering how to complete tasks, and confusion using online sites caused by inconsistent or non-traditional web page access [2]. However, problems can be addressed by following the WCAG, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, assistive technologies (Ex. Text-to-Speech), and improving interface elements.

I met people that experience these types of challenges and many of them are truly outstanding individuals competent in their respected fields, they just interact differently with everyday tasks.

[1] Cognitive Disabilities Part 1
https://webaim.org/articles/cognitive/cognitive_too_little/

[2] Cognitive accessibility
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Accessibility/Cognitive_accessibility

TL;DR - Video games can be political and you can find political messages in every game, but the intention of the creators wasn't to deliver a political message or might fail at properly delivering their intended message.

I agree with your point. All video games are political, or at the very least can demonstrate a political statement of some sort. It's not hard to see this on games like Bioshock and Assassin's Creed that clearly use historical and philosophical concepts for the purpose of political commentary. However, I don't think that every video game intends to make political statements, and even those who intend to deliver an ideological message don't always succeed at doing so.

Perhaps all games deliver a political message but that message might be hidden in layers of a mainstream ideology, or not even be the direct intent of the creator. Take for example Guitar Hero and other musical games where the tracks in the game might have political messages, but those messages are not the opinions of the developers, they just added popular tracks consumers would like. The game itself does promote a simulated lifestyle as a musical performer who performs mostly western music and uses western musical instruments, and that can be considered spreading western ideology. But again, I doubt spreading western culture as a political statement was ever the intent of a Guitar Hero game.

Another thing the came to mind is what if there is a political message intended but it's not successfully delivered? For example, the board game Monopoly was created by anti-monopolist Lizzie Magie hoping it would work as an educational tool to illustrate the negative aspects of concentrating land in private monopolies [1]. The game Monopoly now is just a fun game where you can be an oppressive capitalist and win. The game has the opposite message of what it was intended to be.

Again I do agree that video games are political, but they might not be intended to be political or might be intending to deliver a political message but it might not be a successful delivery

[1] Monopoly (game)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_(game)#Early_history

TL;DR – Both coffee and tea are great drinks with various benefits but this is not an argument based on preference like flavor or side effects. In terms of market share and variety of health benefits, coffee has a slight upper hand over tea.

The debate between coffee and tea has been going on for years but a good argument can be made that coffee has a slight upper hand on tea. Both drinks a very popular and your opinion on which is better will depend on what part of the world you reside from. Although tea has a long and complex history than coffee with a wide variety of consumers, coffee is currently the dominant industry in terms of market value and has a variety of health benefits.

In economic terms, tea is the most widely consumed hot drink with Turkey, Ireland, and the United Kingdom as their top consumers [1]. However, total tea production and retail roughly sum up to $58 Billion (USD) which is far behind the coffee industry [2]. The coffee shop industry alone reached $47.5 billion (USD) in 2019 [3] while the global coffee market is anticipated to reach $134.25 billion. Both industries are growing but the coffee market has expanded in recent years and will continue to expand due to rapid urbanization (and therefore more demand for coffee shops), rising e-commerce retail sales, increasing instant coffee preference, and growing demand for specialty coffee [4].

In terms of health benefits, both coffee and tea have generally positive benefits. Both help prevent cancer and lower chances of Alzheimer’s disease [5]. Tea improves your immune system and protects the body against kidney stones, and coffee helps to protect against Parkinson’s disease, lowers the risk of type 2 diabetes and liver cirrhosis [6]. Since both seem to be relatively equal at preventing diseases, coffee is slightly better because of its antioxidants. A single cup of coffee boasts more antioxidants (200 to 550 milligrams per cup) than one cup of black or green tea (150 to 400 milligrams per cup) [7].

[1[ Top 10 Tea Loving Countries In The World
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/top-10-tea-loving-countries-in-the-world.html

[2] Global Market Report: Tea
https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/ssi-global-market-report-tea.pdf

[3] Size of the coffee shop market in the United States from 2018 to 2020
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1032200/coffee-shop-industry-market-size-us/#:~:text=Therefore%2C%20it%20may%20come%20as,percent%20from%20the%20previous%20year.

[4] Global Coffee Market (2020 to 2024)
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200513005323/en/Global-Coffee-Market-2020-to-2024---Insights-Forecast-with-Potential-Impact-of-COVID-19---ResearchAndMarkets.com#:~:text=The%20global%20coffee%20market%20is,the%20period%20spanning%202020%2D2024.

[5] Coffee vs. Tea: Is One Better for Your Health?
https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20161223/coffee-vs-tea-is-one-better-health

[6] Coffee vs. Tea: Is One Healthier Than the Other?
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/coffee-vs-tea#better-choice

[7] Is It Better To Drink Coffee Or Tea First Thing In The Morning?
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/better-drink-coffee-or-tea-morning_l_60088481c5b62c0057c2d119

TL;DR - People associate power with violence and repression, but this just power in its most obstructive form. People are less likely to notice normalizing power, which is far more capable of predicting and regulating our behavior. Normalizing power is not good or bad, but it's certainly everywhere in society and our lives have been influenced by it more than repression.

When we think of institutions using power, we usually think of police officers using force to handle a protest, or an angry boss telling his employees to work harder, or a powerful country using military force to invade a weaker country. We think of power through repression, it's the most visible form of power, and this can be manifested in the form of physical, mental, and political violence.

However, these acts of violence are not the use of power but rather the failure of institutions, if police officers have to use force against protestors it’s because protestors decided not to follow the law or at least were perceived not to do so. A boss that has to yell at their employees about what to do is not really in control. If a powerful country has to go through the trouble of invading another country, it means they failed to get what they wanted from the weaker ones.

Although violence and repression are the most visible form of power, if an institution had normalizing power, they would not need to use violence. Normalizing power is influencing people to behave, accept information, and do as they are told without questioning authority [1]. Repressive power forces people to do actions they do not want to do, normalizing power makes people want to do whatever society believes they should be doing. Normalizing power is not only preventative but also subtle and compelling.

For example, very few of us will ever steal something from a store, and we're not likely to go to jail for it. Most are not afraid of stealing because of going to jail, in fact, most of us simply don’t think about stealing at all. This is due to the efficiency of our parents and educational institutions at normalizing and teaching us not to steal to the point we prevent ourselves from even thinking about it. You don’t need to use repressive power to threaten people not to steal if they already do what is right and not do it [2] [3].

Our lives had rarely been influenced by repressive power or the threat of repressive force, but every corner of our lives has been drastically influenced by normalization. This power doesn’t only come from institutions like the government alone; it's exercised by schools, families, hospitals, mental clinics, and businesses. There is no powerful few that normalizes society, it's society itself that normalizes society [3]. Society gives an employee an idea of how an employee should behave, but the boss is also given an idea about how a boss should behave. Everyone has some role in society thanks to normalizing power.

References:

[1] Means of Correct Training
https://www2.southeastern.edu/Academics/Faculty/jbell/foucaultcorrecttraining.pdf

[2] Discipline and Punish (1975)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish

[3] Foucault: power is everywhere (excerts)
https://www.powercube.net/other-forms-of-power/foucault-power-is-everywhere/

TL;DR - Educating kids about different religions is always good, but being required to question your religion can mess with people's lifestyles. Some people's religious beliefs are part of their identity and this may come into conflict with giving kids the option to change religions.

I agree with the idea of giving children more autonomy in their life choices, but religion might be too complicated to choose from at an early age. Although kids are pretty knowledgeable by high school, this doesn't mean they can make life-changing decisions that can change their system of beliefs.

People are disposed to certain beliefs at an early age, and sometimes these beliefs are influenced by religion. Religion is not like a job or profession, it can be a spiritual commitment, or system of beliefs, or sometimes the only framework available to determine right and wrong. It depends on what type of attitudes your household has and their relationship with religion. Some households aren't religious so changing religions may not be a problem, but it can be problematic with other households that use religion as part of their identity.

For example, I was raised Catholic but never really went to church frequently. My parents were pretty liberal, they just wanted me to believe in God and didn't mind if I changed my religion. I wouldn't have had a hard time converting into another Christian religion, but my parents probably would've worried if I converted into something radically different. I wasn't raised very religious, but even my parents would've been concerned because of their pre-existing beliefs.

It's just difficult to start a neutral spot with religion since not everyone is raised with an open-minded and secular notion of religion.

Imagine someone that is raised to believe that they are following the one true religion and that reality revolves around god's will. How are we going to explain to this person that they may want to consider choosing a different set of beliefs without contradicting in their own belief that they are following the one true religion? This can easily go existential to someone's lifestyle.

Being more informed about different religions and understanding their practices can help inform people about different styles of living but engaging in practices can cause problems with parents, not only of the hyper-religious type but can you imagine being an atheist parent trying to teach your kid about belief systems? there's nothing wrong with doing this but many atheists had bad experiences with religions of their childhood. They probably would rather not have their kids engage with certain religious groups.

I know I sound overly critical but I would like for kids to be more educated about different religions but its a difficult subject to resolve since everyone's experience with religion is different depending on how you're raised and where you come from. I like the idea, but the application may be cause problems.

TL;DR - Esports should be considered a sport or at least recognized as a competitive event. Biases against videogames are probably what prevents most of society from considering them actual sports despite their increasing global viewership.

I agree sports and video games have a lot of similarities and esports are growing in viewership now more than ever. Since video games are a much more recent phenomenon it's taking a bit longer for people to acknowledge esports potential.

Many people still have some opinions and biases against videogames and that includes many media outlets that attempt to reinforce negative beliefs, or just cannot consider esports as something more than just a bunch of people pushing buttons and looking at a screen [1]. Here is a clip of sports commentators laughing at esports from a few years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Box01YzekaQ&feature=emb_title

Public opinion is shifting and more people are legitimizing esports as a sport or at least a competitive event. A quick reminder that esports has a whopping 500 million total viewership globally (far more than American football) [2], so if we consider videogames a sport it would roughly have the same viewership as basketball and would surpass rugby and golf [3].

[1] Mainstream Media: A Love-Hate Relationship With eSports
https://www.criticalhit.net/gaming/mainstream-media-love-hate-relationship-esports/

[2] Esports Is Filling The Programming Void
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2020/04/21/esports-is-filling-the-programming-void/?sh=374bb779533b

[3] ESPORTS VIEWERSHIP VS. SPORTS IN 2020
https://www.roundhillinvestments.com/research/esports/esports-viewership-vs-sports

TL;DR - Electric scooters do have plenty of environmental benefits, but what prevents cities from implementing them are not only safety concerns but also insurance and investment concerns.

Electric scooters can be a useful method Co2 emissions reductions and can be an alternative form of transportation in the cities. However, many issues could arise aside from potential accidents such as battery issues, lack of parking regulation creating visual pollution, and companies cutting corners to reduce cost resulting in unreliable software and hardware [1].

One of the more concerning issues may come from insurance companies not sure how to treat those scooters and whether they are covered or not through car insurance. Scooter users may need to contact their insurance company to make sure they are covered properly to avoid any unpleasant consequences that could result from insufficient insurance [2].

Also from an investment perspective, buying a new E-Scooter model may be a risky choice since the depreciation of electric scooters is usually pretty high. Therefore, we can assume companies are engaging in some risky decisions by investing in electric scooters that may lose plenty of value in their first few years of use. Unless the city is willing to cover part of the maintenance expenses, riding scooters may get expensive or may not last long [2].

I like the idea, both my hometown and the last city I lived in had E-scooters and they seem to be managing it pretty well.

[1] Are Electric Scooters Awesome or Terrible? A Look at the Pros and Cons.
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/318486

[2] Pros and Cons of Electric Scooters
https://environmental-conscience.com/electric-scooters-pros-cons/

TL;DR - Short guys experience discrimination in their social and professional lives. Not many people are aware of their subtle bias, but being short is not a very likable trait in society. Short people experience financial and legal inequalities as well as dating discrimination.

We know that society places a positive value on people of tall stature: We look up to them rather than down. Height seems to affect our sense of social status and being taller tends to be socially desirable. But the same cannot be said about short stature. We look at the long list of cons attributed to short height with little room for pros. Heightism is a very prevalent form of discrimination that few people take seriously.

Short males often face discrimination in various areas of social life in dating, employment, leadership, and public perception. Compared to biases against women’s height, it is much worse with short guys. For example, every short man who expresses a forceful opinion becomes indignant about anything or speaks passionately, often mockingly labeled, as having a ‘Napoleon complex’ or the even more offensive “short-man syndrome” [1] [2]. When was the last time you heard a pseudo-scientific label attributed to people of average height with similar personality traits?

Multiple psychological studies on height bias affirm most people view short height negatively. There is a common belief is that there is a height bias in dating and, there is a refusal to consider a romantic encounter with someone due to his height which is less common among other male attributes like weight and body type. Studies have reported that women consider taller men more attractive [3], and on average, the shortest man a woman would date is 5 feet 9 inches tall (1.75 cm) [4]. If anything, height should be included as part of the body positivity movement.

Another study conducted at Oxford University let participants go through the virtual experience of riding a subway at their normal height and then at that height reduced. For the study, 60 participants, none with a history of mental illness, took about six minutes each. Rides were programmed and animated identically except for one ride where the participant’s height was reduced by 25 centimeters (roughly 10 inches). They reported that during the ride in which they were shorter, they felt more vulnerable, more negative about themselves [5].

Evidence also suggests that height matters in terms of financial inequality:

-Height is strongly related to income for men, after controlling for other social psychological variables like age, sex, and weight [6].

-Again, for men, a 1.8 percent increase in wages accompanies every additional inch of height [7].

-These pay disparities are similar in magnitude to the race and gender pay gaps [8].

-Ninety percent of CEOs, according to The Economist, are of above-average height [9].

Although overt discrimination does not happen often, it rarely provokes any outcry. The media reports very little on the issue. For example, in January 2015, the press rightly covered Russia’s decision to prevent transexuals and transgenders from driving motor vehicles – yet few reporters also highlighted that the new law also applied to people below 150 centimeters (around five feet) [2]. There is also almost no legislation prohibiting height discrimination, with a few exceptions in the state of Michigan and the municipalities of Santa Cruz and San Francisco, and in Canada the province of Ontario.

It might be worth reflecting if our unconscious views about height are influencing our perceptions of someone's capabilities, likeability, and leadership potential.

[1] A Little-Discussed Bias: Height.
https://medium.com/@jklehman/a-little-discussed-bias-height-390495da147

[2] Heightism: an unacknowledged bias?
https://www.employment-studies.co.uk/news/heightism-unacknowledged-bias

[3] Women want taller men more than men want shorter women.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886913000020

[4] 5 Reasons Why Women and Men Care About Height
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/after-service/201909/5-reasons-why-women-and-men-care-about-height#:~:text=On%20average%2C%20women%20have%20a%20strong%20preference%20for%20tall%20men.&text=Men%20are%20most%20satisfied%20when,only%20men%20taller%20than%20them.

[5] Short People Got … Lots of Reasons to Legitimately Feel Paranoid
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/2/140216-short-tall-height-perception-psychology-bias-science/#close

[6] The Effect of Physical Height on Workplace Success and Income: Preliminary Test of a Theoretical Model
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-95165-004

[7] The Effect of Adolescent Experience on Labor Market Outcomes: The Case of Height
https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~apostlew/paper/pdf/short.pdf

[8] Why Tall People Make More Money.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/the-financial-perks-of-being-tall/393518/#:~:text=More%20Stories,-The%20Difference%20Between&text=Since%20the%20publication%20of%20Gowin's,%2C%20as%20academics%20would%20say).

[9] Short Guys Finish Last - The world’s most enduring form of discrimination.
https://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/height_discrimination_short_guys_finish_last/

TL;DR - Every other poll suggests chocolate is preferred, and just because vanilla is used on every desert doesn't mean its better than chocolate on its own.

Numerous arguments could be generated in favor of chocolate; chocolate ice cream is more widely preferred than vanilla [1], hot chocolate/hot cocoa vs eggnog is the ongoing debate over preferred holiday drink, and chocolate cupcakes (with a chocolate base) are more widely preferred over vanilla (with vanilla base)[2]. Even Nesquik discontinued their vanilla flavored due to low sales in 2006 [3].

This argument relies on the argument that vanilla is superior because deserts require the enhancement of vanilla to improve the flavor. Furthermore, vanilla is an essential variable to chocolate deserts, and there so there is no question that vanilla is overall a better ingredient. But because vanilla is a better ingredient and is essential to other things doesn't mean it's better than chocolate.

Flour, for example, is essential to cake but that doesn't mean flour is better than cake. We don't secretly want vanilla; we want the things that contain vanilla as an ingredient, just like we don't secretly want flour; we want things that are made with flour.

If I used this logic for chocolate I could argue that everyone that prefers red velvet cake secretly likes chocolate because it has a cocoa base. This somewhat undermines preference because now red velvet lovers are chocolate fans against their will due to a technicality.

[1] This is the most popular ice cream flavor in America
https://today.yougov.com/topics/food/articles-reports/2020/07/14/popular-ice-cream-flavor-poll-survey-direct

[2] Poll Results: Cupcakes
https://today.yougov.com/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2014/07/14/poll-results-cupcakes

[3]Nesquik
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nesquik

TL;DR – Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) changed the discourse of U.S. politics and his influence is more notable than Lincoln and Washington. His expansion of the executive branch through federal and increasing America’s global presence led to many of the debates and policies now surrounding American politics. This is not to say he was a better president, but his legacy covers almost every aspect of American politics.

The 32nd U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945) is considered one of the best along with George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Thomas Jefferson [1]. Though many still do not consider him to stand equal ground amongst the founding fathers and framers of the constitution; FDR’s challenging presidency redefined the function of the executive branch into what it is today [2].

Roosevelt got elected after the stock market crash of 1929 which led to the Great Depression. The scale of this problem was unseen; between the peak and the downturn, industrial production in the United States declined 47 percent and GDP fell 30 percent [3]. Compared to his predecessors who usually took a backseat to the economy, Roosevelt drastically expanded the scope of the executive branch to fight the depression by implementing federal programs:

-Relief programs and reforming the banking system.

-Regulated farming production to avoid overproduction and provide compensation.

-Provided federal jobs for the unemployed in infrastructure and public works.

-Federal guaranteed financial assistance.

These policies are known as the New Deal and change the discourse of American politics as they redefine the federal government's relationship with its citizens. Many of these policies are part of the American way of life: Federally guaranteed deposits, social security, public housing programs, employment services, self-governing for indigenous tribes, and so on [4]. The New Deal inspired later policies that sought to use the federal government to improve the lives of individuals with Medicare and Medicaid, Civil Rights Act, Federal Highway Act, Environmental legislation, etc. however this also led to the ongoing debate on the scope of the federal government and interfering itself too much in our lives.

FDR also remains influential around the world changing the United States relationship with the rest of the world. Aside from being president for most of World War II, he along with the rest of the allies founded the United Nations, with First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt being an influential figure in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These new approaches to international politics officially ended the United States' isolationist approach to global affairs [5]. Again, it's impossible to list how influential Roosevelt was here: construction of the Pentagon, modeling intelligence service after the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) which led to the creation of the CIA, the Manhattan Project, and Bretton Woods Conference which founded the World Bank and IMF, so on.

Other Presidents like Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt also had attempted to increase federal authority, but large-scale involvement in economic activity and social reform did not become an expectation for the Federal government nor it intended to get involved in every aspect of American life until FDR [5][6]. While others like Woodrow Wilson attempted to promote U.S. involvement in foreign affairs, FDR led the U.S. into hegemonic superpower status.

Though the founding presidents legitimized the presidency and stated the limits of executive power, the presidential expectation to be accountable for many aspects of American life has been mostly influenced by FDR’s expansion to federal authority.

[1] An Economic Ranking of the US Presidents, 1789–2009: A Data-Based Approach. PS: Political Science and Politics
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41691393

[2] “The Contemporary Presidency": Rating the Presidents: A Tracking Study. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 33(3), 625-634.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27552516

[3] Great Depression
https://www.britannica.com/event/Great-Depression

[4] New Deal Programs
https://livingnewdeal.org/what-was-the-new-deal/programs/

[5] The foreign policy of the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Franklin_D._Roosevelt_administration

[6] Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans
http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schleslib.html

[7] FDR: The President Who Made America Into a Superpower
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ken-walshs-washington/2015/04/10/fdr-franklin-delano-roosevelt-made-america-into-a-superpower

TL;DR - Jack Nicholson had one of the best performances as the Joker, but his divergence from the Joker's source material and the comic storyline is what prevents him from being the best.

The Jack Nicholson Joker is outstanding on every level, he is perhaps the best part of the entire movie. He is a good synthesis of the golden era (1940s-1955) and silver era (1956-1970) Batman comics with a flair of psychotic gangster credited to Tim Burton. His motivations are aligned more with the silver era - illusions of power, and celebrity as a criminal folk hero; but his means are ones of a homicidal maniac just like in the golden era [1]. he is genuinely a classic Joker in his performance to the core.

But that is as far as I agree with the argument since Jack Nicholson's Joker has some flaws and his origin diverges from the source material. Nicholson's Joker has already turned into the Joker but also has an alter ego - Jack Napier. This is a notable shift from the comics because the Joker's identity and origins are unknown and don't have an alter ego, and the Joker's transformation occurred when he fell into acid [2]. In the movie, Jack Napier is already the Joker and it seems like he always was which undermines his character arc. Another problem is that in the movie it's a young Jack Napier who kills Bruce Wayne's parents and not Joe Chill [3].

Although these changes don't affect the quality of the movie or the character itself, it does affect the embodiment of the character's essence since he doesn't have that air of mystery on who he is and what his intentions are [4]. The Joker is not only goofy and menacing, but he is also mysterious and irrational.

Personally determining who is the best Joker can be complicated. But I see it In terms of performance, it usually sums up to quality vs source material. Joaquin Phoenix's Joker, for example, has an award-winning performance but its story is so far away from the Joker in Batman that it's hard to think of him as the best. I think it's a tie between Heath Ledger and Mark Hamil in the animated series but that's an opinion for another time.

[1] The Joker Evolution: How This Iconic Character Developed over the Years
https://www.qualitycomix.com/learn/the-evolution-of-the-joker

[2] Joker (DC Comics)
https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Joker_(Prime_Earth)

[3] Joe Chill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Chill#:~:text=In%20Batman's%20origin%20story%2C%20Joe,crime%20as%20the%20vigilante%20Batman.
[4] Comics in Context #84: Dark Definitive
https://www.ign.com/articles/2005/05/13/comics-in-context-84-dark-definitive?page=6

TL;DR- Waking up early benefits you depending on what type of sleeper you are. Many successful people enjoy waking up late so what's more important than waking up early is getting enough sleep.

People are convinced waking up early is the best way to be productive, but that may not be the case for everyone. Waking up early might not be ideal depending on what type of sleeper you are and what you consider early. Natural early birds may have an easier time waking up before sunrise, but others could become less productive doing so. [1]

Many CEOs like Tim Cook from Apple and Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi claim that waking up at 4:00 am is key to their success [1]. But testimonies from people who attempted to set their wake up time around 4:00 am or 5:00 am said it was “miserable,” and “fell asleep in their chair” [2]. You don't have to wake up early to be successful but it's good to keep a consistent sleeping pattern of 8 hours.

With that being said, many successful people were known for their habit of snoozing late: Winston Churchill didn't get out of bed until 11:00 am, Box CEO Aaron Levie around 10:00 am, and Alexis Ohanian, founder of Reddit goes to bed around 2:00 am and tries to get up by 10:00 am [3].

[1] Starting your morning at an obscenely early hour won’t make you more successful—but these 5 things will
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/04/waking-up-super-early-wont-make-you-more-successful-but-science-says-these-5-things-will.html

[2] I tried waking up at 4 am for 2 weeks to boost my productivity—and it was miserable
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/10/i-tried-waking-up-at-4-am-for-2-weeks-to-boost-my-productivity-and-it-was-miserable.html

[3] Successful people who wake up late
https://www.businessinsider.com/successful-people-who-wake-up-late-2017-6#james-joyce-lay-smothered-in-his-own-thoughts-until-11-am-10

TL;DR - Regardless of how we feel about surveillance, we have to recognize it serves more than one purpose, not only as a deterrent for criminal acts but also as a form of corrective behavior in society. Surveillance targets everyone and is a form of social control, which has brought both positive and negative outcomes.

Whether your stance is for or against, there is no denying that the various technologies used for surveillance have exceeded their expectations in not only deterring crime but regulating society's behaviors. The security apparatus targets everyone as it intends to enforce corrective behavior [1].

This is done through the use of disciplinary surveillance, best exemplified by security video cameras, but it is also present in schools, workplaces, and most public areas. Think about going into the grocery store; we can find video cameras in every corner to deter shoplifting and ensure proper behavior from shoppers. At the same time, workers in that store are under constant surveillance through the use of electronic registers, and customer service surveys [2]. In other words, you don't have to be a criminal or do anything bad, since surveillance is not only designed to deter crime, it's also used to regulate all sorts of behaviors in public.

Another type is performance monitoring so we can even see surveillance in our personal lives. Childhood development, mental illness, cognitive performance are all highly monitored by health care professionals and social workers for example, and most of us just accept this as normal [2].

Most people don't have trouble following the rules because we've accepted the fact we are being watched; we've been conditioned to accept this as normal at a very young age – this is how constant surveillance regulates our behavior. We fear becoming the wrong kind of person – a failing student, an unproductive worker, a bad parent, for example.

The history of mass surveillance is a very recent occurrence. Society has become so obsessed with monitoring every aspect of our daily lives.

I'm not necessarily against surveillance since it's the best deterrent we have and the data presented by AnnaHubbard speaks for itself. But we also have to acknowledge that constant surveillance doesn’t necessarily improve our lives – there are both winners and losers.

[1] "Modules on Foucault: On Panoptic and Carceral Society."
https://cla.purdue.edu/academic/english/theory/newhistoricism/modules/foucaultcarceral.html

[2] Foucault – Surveillance and Crime Control
https://revisesociology.com/2016/09/21/foucault-surveillance-crime-control/#:~:text=Foucault%20argues%20that%20the%20use,are%20subjected%20to%20disciplinary%20power.

TL;DR- Elon Musk is portraited as an outcast billionaire genius who can achieve scientific breakthroughs better than anyone else, but this is simply the result of a good public relations performance. He may appear to be a revolutionary-minded innovator changing the future and perhaps those are his intentions, but this distracts us from the fact that he acts like any other businessman trying to gain market control now owning 27% of all active satellites and producing luxury electric cars that only few can obtain. Other issues show Musk’s lack of cleverness: his questioning of COVID response, his sense of superiority on any subject despite his lack of expertise, and the numerous failures and problems within his products.

Elon Musk undoubtedly has a list of impressive milestones with startup companies like Tesla and SpaceX, and now as the wealthiest person as of January 2021, he has become somewhat of a mythologized figure with an increasing cult following. His quirky tweets and responses, his visionary drive to colonize Mars, and his laid-back attitude set him apart from other more formal, and business-oriented billionaires. This due to his Public Relations approach. Tesla and Musk have stopped engaging publicly with the traditional news media, instead of relying on Musk’s Twitter account, the company’s YouTube channel, and other social media influencers [1]. This approach has been very successful for Musk but this distracts from Musk’s business activities and creates an illusion of who he really is.

Elon Musk is portrayed as a revolutionary figure who can do ‘science’ better than anyone else, but his ideas and products have multiple flaws. For example, Tesla, although being extremely successful recently, does not live up to its vision of revolutionizing the automobile industry by transitioning into electric vehicles. Other companies like Kia, Toyota, and Ford have also influenced the transition into electric equally with more affordable automobiles [2]. Tesla is more of a luxury car brand that cannot attract sufficient buyers on their change the industry, only a wealthy few. This is without recognizing the flaws in Tesla’s automobiles such as the autopilot flaws which led to fatal accidents and the malfunctioning of the Model 3 reported in 2019 [3].

Despite a history of failed business projects and setbacks, like being rejected from Zip2 and Netscape and humble beginnings in both SpaceX and Tesla, Musk has no trouble pandering on other people’s ideas. His bare-knuckle management style has been documented by past employees which include assigning impossible tasks and working 24 hours a day, yelling at executives in front of their spouses, and firing his assistant after taking a vacation [4].

Aside from his business successes and failures, Elon Musk demonstrates certain delusional or even anti-authoritarian tendencies during the COVID-19 pandemic threatening to move his main plant after the local government of Fremont, California order to keep his plant closed. This doesn’t set a good example after a number of his employees tested positive for the virus after tweeting: “The coronavirus panic is dumb” and “This is fascist. This is not democratic. This is not freedom.” [5].

I agree Elon Musk has revolutionized several industries, but it's very clear that his quirky and inspiring exterior covers the questionable acts and history of problems that make him similar to other CEOs and entrepreneurs who do everything they can to get ahead.

[1] Elon Musk Is Now Disrupting Public Relations — For Tesla, At Least
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/01/05/elon-musk-is-now-disrupting-public-relations-for-tesla-at-least/

[2] Why Are Tesla Cars So Expensive?
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/032415/why-are-tesla-cars-so-expensive.asp#:~:text=Tesla%20cars%20are%20expensive%2C%20but,moment%2C%20demand%20is%20outstripping%20supply.&text=The%20other%20main%20reason%20for,supply%20these%20vehicles%20with%20power.

[3] 5,000 Tesla Owners Told Us What Elon Musk Got Right and Wrong Quality.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-tesla-model-3-survey/

[4] The Evolution of Elon Musk: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly
https://www.adalo.com/posts/the-evolution-of-elon-musk-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly

[5] Can We Finally Stop Listening to Elon Musk Now?
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-05-15/elon-musk-is-many-things-but-wise-isn-t-one-of-them

TL;DR- We regularly hear news on a celebrity, businessman, or some sort of inexperienced citizen attempting to run for president in the upcoming election. The most obvious of these cases has been Donald Trump in 2016, but more recently, several unqualified individuals attempted to gain the nomination of a major party or hinted at running as independent candidates. Electing an inexperienced candidate is not necessarily a good idea and it can be at worst dangerous without knowing how the political landscape works or without having proper decision-making skills.

In 2016, the Republican party had a total of 16 candidates with three of them having no experience in any elected office or a public administrative position: businessman Donald Trump, famous surgeon Ben Carson, and former CEO of Hewlett-Packard (HP) Carly Fiorina. In 2020, the Democratic party didn’t follow up on the trend as much, but many celebrities didn't dismiss the possibility of running for office one day. Rumors circulated in 2018 on Oprah Winfrey potentially running for office which drew huge media attention [1], and similar reports citing Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Michelle Obama, and Mark Zuckerberg hinting at similar ambitions [2].

These people do not lack the talent in their respected fields, but they may not have the expertise or even understand the basic functions of what constitutes executive power, branches of government, international relations, the economy, and so on. Dwayne Johnson seems to be naïve on this aspect according to an interview [3]:

“Could I surround myself with really brilliant people to help me make decisions? Couldn’t my Congressional allies handle the legislation, and my lawyers handle the executive orders? Couldn’t a smart person surrounded by experts be the best candidate for the job?”
Mr. Johnson has not contemplated the fact that most people elected to the highest office have been notably smart individuals with experts who tend to give outstandingly wrong advice often, such as the case of Bush 43’s hawkish foreign policy cabinet pushing for the disastrous invasion of Iraq.

The most recent infamous case was Kanye West’s campaign which gathered a total of 66,641 votes in the 2020 election. Although most didn’t seriously think he had a viable chance of winning as an independent, we should treat this as a serious warning sign considering a rapper with a god complex who was placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold and is formally diagnosed with bipolar disorder is getting thousands of votes [4].

[1] Sources: Oprah Winfrey 'actively thinking' about running for president
https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/08/media/oprah-golden-globes/index.html

[2] The Trump effect: Everyone's thinking of running for president
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-trump-effect-everyones-thinking-of-running-for-president/2017/06/05/51ff27a8-46f5-11e7-bcde-624ad94170ab_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.e45625bc7178

[3] Dear Oprah And Other Celebrities, Please Don’t Run For President
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dear-oprah-and-other-celebrities-please-dont-run_b_5a54dd3ee4b0cd114bdb367b?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABU243xEinv51V8wE29IWExu2ldZRo_-h4vNqDr6HsaEz_r5F-wjn0DQEXI3hODtRM46cVJan5zf1ElSEgtq9uOvKyYWq_VqU1CSRH4aC9JSlO8Hi3AxoVhHTdzXRNYRXv_JM6iJQ0_DZacpbBFOsN7OcIzqbtRoOdi3RBdpPOKR

[4] Kanye West’s Recent Breakdown Highlights How Social Media Further Stigmatizes Mental Health Challenges In The Black Community
https://www.forbes.com/sites/maiahoskin/2020/07/24/kanye-wests-recent-breakdown-highlights-how-social-further-stigmatizes-mental-health-challenges-in-the-black-community/?sh=5129636c1a39

TL;DR- It's almost universal advice to eat breakfast in the morning to live a healthy lifestyle. However, there's conflicting evidence in health studies with some physicians arguing that there are few links between weight loss and consuming breakfast. Some scholars argue breakfast eaters tend to be healthier and leaner than breakfast-skippers due to the fact that breakfast eaters have other healthy lifestyle habits.

Personally, as a breakfast eater, I do enjoy eating waffles or an omelet in the morning, but I eat it for other health reasons aside from having a healthy lifestyle. But I never thought breakfast was all that great and I didn't eat for most of my life up until I was an adult. However, one can't help to notice that breakfast is a big deal, and it's constantly promoted by parents, doctors, even schools, and the workplace. Statistics show that two-thirds of adults in the UK eat breakfast regularly and around three-quarters of Americans eat breakfast [1].

Several studies indicate that breakfast eaters tend to be healthier. For example, they are less likely to be overweight and have a lower risk of chronic diseases. This can lead us to think that breakfast is linked to good health but the observations only show that people who eat breakfast are more likely to be healthier, but they don't indicate that breakfast itself caused it [2].

For example, of a study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in which 52 obese women took part in a 12-week weight loss program. Every participant had the same number of calories over the day, but half had breakfast, while the other half did not [3].

Findings showed that it wasn’t the breakfast that caused the participants to lose weight, but changing their daily health routine did. The women who said before the study that they usually ate breakfast lost 9kg when they stopped having breakfast, compared to 6kg in the breakfast group. Meanwhile, breakfast skippers lost 8kg when they started eating it – and 6kg when they continued to skip breakfast.

Therefore, having breakfast is still good for you, but it's the habits that come from pursuing a new diet and becoming more informed on your food consumption that makes you healthier.

[1] 'Is breakfast really the most important meal of the day' https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181126-is-breakfast-good-for-your-health#:~:text=Early%20findings%20suggest%20that%20a%20bigger%20breakfast%20is%20beneficial%20to%20weight%20control.&text=Breakfast%20has%20been%20found%20to,risk%20of%20type%202%20diabetes

[2] 'Is Skipping Breakfast Bad for You? The Surprising Truth' https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/is-skipping-breakfast-bad

[3] The role of breakfast In the treatment of obesity: a randomized clinical trial. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/55.3.645

TL;DR - Joan of Arc's mental state can be debatable, but there hasn't been a scholarly consensus on any punitive diagnosis. Several historians have mostly argued against the mental illness claims, and while the medical community suggests the possibility of a condition, there hasn't been any objective symptoms. While I believe we should use a modern scientific analysis to evaluate historical figures to better understand their action, the case for Joan of Arc has plenty of conflicting evidence.

Though I do agree with the opinion title; Joan of Arc was probably not a prophet and many people didn't think so either during her time, including the English and the Burgundians. I would argue that she is indeed not a prophet and we should not recognize her historically as god's chosen one, but more for her contributions as the catalyst for an effective Christian narrative at the end of the hundred years war which was one of the factors for France's victory.

The possibility of mental illness is there, but we should be skeptical of these claims. Many conditions have been suggested but Joan of Arc doesn't seem absolutely comparable with most of them. Dr. J. R. Hughes has rejected several of the conditions including idiopathic partial epilepsy (or temporal lobe epilepsy), paranoid schizophrenia, and other conditions proposed don't seem unlikely:

"The possibility that Joan of Arc's voices and visions were epileptic phenomena has been considered, but clearly auditory and visual hallucinations are very uncommon in epilepsy. Epileptic phenomena are nearly always brief and primitive, like light flashes; the well-formed visions she described lasted hours, rather than just a minute or so. Thus, the extremely pious and religious Joan of Arc likely experienced religious messages, rather than epileptic phenomena."

Others like Dr. Yakovleffa and Dr. Nores J. M. argue such serious types of mental diseases present in a patient like temporal lobe tuberculoma would've made her life-style and activities impossible. Some have suggested personality disorders with less of a biological link; Dr. Philip Mackowiak dismissed the possibility of schizophrenia but suggested delusional disorder.

Although the medical advances in the 15th century were nothing close to our scientific knowledge on mental illness, higher officials in the French court could tell if someone was acting mad or unstable. After all, the then overthrown King of France Charles VII was the successor to Charles VI or better known as "Charles the Mad" for his well-known psychosis. Charles VII, then King of Reims, was constantly suspicious of people in his court experiencing signs of madness (St. Joan Center). So they weren't naïve on the issue.

Joan of Arc didn't simply walk up to the French court on the first day talking about her visions; she was sent to a castle at Chinon where she was examined for three weeks, and later put to trial at Poitiers. Multiple clergy and ministers examined her deeds and sanity including doctors of law, theology, and the Bishop of Meaux. After much interrogation and surveillance, most ministers agreed she didn't appear to be anything out of ordinary; her behavior was strictly pious but she didn't show signs of madness, irrationality, or inconsistency (St. Joan Center). Although this doesn't tell us much about what's going on inside her mind, it's fair to say she appeared to be in full control of herself.

I don't reject the possibility of a mental condition, but I do think that before we change the interpretation of Joan of Arc's biography we ought to be more confident about her illness. After all, if the source of her visions came from a grandiose delusion disorder, it would create a different historical interpretation than saying she had an epileptic episode.

Hughes, J. R. (2005). "Did all those famous people really have epilepsy?". Epilepsy & Behavior. 6 (2): 115–39. doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2004.11.011

Mackowiak, P. (2007). Post-Mortem: Solving History's Great Medical Mysteries, ACP Press.

Nores J. M., Yakovleff Y. (1995). "A historical case of disseminated chronic tuberculosis". Neuropsychobiology. 32 (2): 79–80. doi:10.1159/000119218. PMID 7477805.

St. Joan Center. Arrival at Chinon and the Trial at Poitiers: Nullification trial testimony of Guillaume de Manchon, Dame Marguerite de Touroulde, etc. http://www.stjoan-center.com/Trials/null05.html

Philosophers have argued that Social media platforms such as Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook are an ‘illusion’, more specifically a ‘simulation’ rapidly replacing our understanding of reality with a more optimized and artificial version of reality.

Philosopher and sociologist Jean Baudrillard is notable for his theories on hyperreality and simulation. He described the simulation as a model of reality, and hyperreality as a representation of reality that has evolved in a way that it has almost become more real than reality (Baudrillard, 1994, p2). Seeing things through a social media hyperreality can lead to the inability to consciously distinguish between reality and the simulated reality. Of course, this does not mean we cannot distinguish between friends on Facebook and a friend met in person, but the actions that symbolize friendships are increasingly done through social media; communications, compliments (like and comments), even gestures like happy birthday wishes.

Most people we met on social media would have historically been considered pen-pals, whom we've either never met or met proportionally and very scarcely compared to communication Facebook, Instagram, Tinder, LinkedIn, or a variety of other measures to seek out others. People react and socialize more often with the functions of social media; becoming Facebook friends with someone before actually creating a genuine friendship, or knowing who is going to be at an event on Facebook before the actual physical event takes place (Zhu, 2015).

Another platform that distorts reality differently is Instagram. The app encourages users to create visual representations that are more desirable than the reality behind them through alterations, those being a simple addition of a filter, or a complete modification in someone’s physical aspects through mobile application or Photoshop. Therefore, Instagram could be defined as a database of simulations, as it collects images of only the best parts of people, this being a vacation, a sculpted body, fun with friends.

Baudrillard, J., (1994). Simulacra and Simulation. University of Michigan press.
UKEssays. (November 2018). Hyperreality and Simulation as Elements of the Media's Influence. Retrieved from https://www.ukessays.com/essays/sociology/hyperreality-and-simulation-as-elements-of-the-medias-influence.php?vref=1
Zhu, D. (2015). Hyperreal in Social Media. Retrieved February 01, 2021, from https://my.vanderbilt.edu/robot/2015/10/hyperreal-in-social-media/

White supremacists, extreme nationalists, and general hate groups have become a domestic issue in the United States and can become a transnational issue soon. The United States must take immediate steps to bring perpetrators to justice. The siege on the U.S. capitol on January 6 demonstrates the severity of the white nationalist/alt-right terrorist threat. Before the siege, the Department of Homeland Security has declared that domestic extremist is the most lethal to national security in the October 2020 assessment.

These groups are likely to be emboldened by a perceived success exploiting otherwise peaceful protest movements and concealing aggressive tactics by taking advantage of large protest crowds to conduct violence against peaceful participants, government officials, and counter-protestors. White supremacist extremists are considered the most violent terrorist category with rapidly evolving tactics and ideologies being constantly reinforced by a variety of online content including conspiracy theories and political commentary (Department of Homeland Security, 2020). Their communications and social media connectivity is moving underground while attracting more followers, now communicating through encrypted messaging (Daly, 2021). Allowing groups to continue these activities doesn't only present a security threat, but could accelerate polarization as they have the potential to radicalize dissatisfied right-leaning voters.

The U.S. government needs to counter these far-right groups and take this threat seriously. Working with organizations like GIFCT (a knowledge-sharing forum between all major data collectors like Facebook and Twitter), the Biden administration can take immediate action on far-right extremism by providing clear definitions to identify far-right groups online and those associated with them (Ganesh, 2021). This would function as a sanction and a deterrent against hate groups. Businesses would be notified of far-right activity from employees or the public on far-right activity associated with a business.

Other initiatives should be applied; rooting out violent white supremacists from the military and law enforcement, increasing the criminal penalty for lynching, and improving data collection and analysis on white supremacist hate groups (Clark, 2020).

Clark, S. (2020). 4 First Steps for Congress To Address White Supremacist Terrorism. Retrieved January 28, 2021, from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/reports/2020/10/30/492095/4-first-steps-congress-address-white-supremacist-terrorism/

Daly, S. (2021, January 12). The online far right is moving underground. Retrieved January 28, 2021, from https://www.axios.com/the-online-far-right-is-moving-underground-e429d45d-1b30-46e0-82a3-6e240bf44fef.html

Department of Homeland Security. (2020) Homeland Threat Assessment October 2020. https://www.dhs.gov/publication/2020-homeland-threat-assessment

Ganesh, B. (2021, January 28). How to Counter White Supremacist Extremists Online. Retrieved January 28, 2021, from https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/28/how-to-counter-white-supremacist-extremists-online/

The document itself is not truly universal or ahistorical, but it did set the discourse that allowed us to accept it as universal. This can only be achieved with certain elements of cultural relativity.

I don't think there is anything inherently universal about the UDHR, if anything it's a set of principles well put together into a document that we use to justify, compel, or denounce actions by international actors. The document by itself has no juridical nor legal power, but it functions as a loose social contract for what we ought to do.

Although there were multiple consultations from multiple cultural entities before its creation including legal groups, religious organizations, and civil societies, the document largely represents western values (1). One could argue that this essentially means the document could be used as a tool for western imperialism as it claims to decide the rules of conduct through the consent of every party who agreed with the document. But this notion of the UDHR functioning as an instrument for the west might be proven too cynical looking at how it influences international law and intergovernmental organizations.

The document itself claims to be Universal but it is also applied in a relativist fashion. The legally binding basis for human rights is nine different binding treaties inspired by the UDHR. These treaties define the international set of rules for political rights, cultural rights, rights of the child, and so on. Therefore we can more clearly define the ideas of the UDHR. Not every country signs into these treaties, for example, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is not signed by Saudi Arabia nor ratified by China. So the actual legal function of the declaration may not exist in a given country (2).

Aside from international law, other regional organizations like the OAS, African Union, Arab League, and EU all have their separate conventions or treaties on human rights. These organizations essentially agree to certain parts of the UDHR or emphasize certain principles. A notable case of this was Arab League's human rights charter shifted away from the UDHR's values when the document included a loose interpretation of women's rights and a moderate position to child capital punishment (3). Nonetheless, most of these documents have some sort of resemblance to the UDHR.

So the best way one could define the UDHR is relatively universal.

Sources:

(1) History of the Document. (n.d.). Retrieved January 27, 2021, from https://www.un.org/en/sections/universal-declaration/history-document/index.html#:~:text=The%20Commission%20on%20Human%20Rights%20was%20made%20up%20of%2018,chaired%20the%20UDHR%20drafting%20committee.

(2) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (2020, December 30). Retrieved January 27, 2021, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights

(3) The Arab Charter on Human Rights is incompatible with international standards - Louise Arbour. (2019, November 14). Retrieved January 27, 2021, from https://humanists.international/2008/03/arab-charter-human-rights-incompatible-international-standards-louise-arbour/

I will have to say Disney has the upper hand on this one. They're a large entity and its difficult to compete with them when it comes to animation, especially considering they have a collection of different studios; Pixar, Marvel Studios, and Lucasfilm. Without mentioning all the revenue at their direct disposal.

Don't get me wrong though, DreamWorks's success has been often credited to their rejection of the Disney narrative and they proven to have a more diverse approach earlier on. Arguably their best film series to date Shrek was a direct satire of the fairytale Disney narrative and managed to utterly crush Disney at the box office that summer in 2001 (Reese, 2001). Other films like Chicken Run, Prince of Egypt, and Road to El Dorado also demonstrated viable alternatives to the Disney Renaissance during the 1990s.

However, you have to take the good with the bad. DreamWorks' main problem arguably has been competing with Disney while balancing both film quality and box office success. One could've argued that DreamWorks was better than both Pixar and Walt Disney Studios in the mid-2000s-2010s. DreamWorks critically acclaimed animated works were outcompeting Disney's back then, but their box office success diminished since the turn of the decade. Here are some comparisons of both DreamWorks and Disney's (Pixar included) highest-grossing feature films throughout the years:

(2004)
Shrek 2- $920 Million (USD)
The Incredibles- $633 Million (USD)

(2007)
Shrek The Third- $799 Million (USD)
Ratatouille- $621 Million (USD)

(2010)
Shrek Forever After- $753 million (USD)
Toy Story 3- $1.067 billion (USD)

(2013)
The Croods- $587 million (USD)
Frozen- $1.280 billion (USD)

(2017)
Boss Baby- $528 million (USD)
Coco- $807.8 million (USD)

Dreamworks has experienced a decline in sales and also quality in some instances, while the opposite happened to Disney. Culturally inappropriate narratives seen in Pocahontas is mostly not seen anymore in Disney Animation. Films like Coco that promote different cultural themes released within the last decade have been critically praised. This is without counting Disney's on-going Academy Award success already mentioned in AnnaHubbard's counter.

Dreamworks struggles with balancing their film quality while also trying to compete for box office sales. Films series like How To Train Your Dragon were critically praised but were unable to compete with Disney in the Box Office. While movies like the Boss Baby and Trolls don't have any major significance other than to sell merchandise and TV shows and shows the studio's declining quality.

Disney has been able to balance its film quality along with its box office success. This is due to the sheer amount of resources Disney has available including creative staff from multiple studio's. DreamWorks at their peak were giving Disney and Pixar a run for their money, but now each Disney film earns twice as much as an entire year of DreamWorks box office revenue. I think it would be fairer to compare one Disney film studio with DreamWorks.

Reese, L. (2001). ''Shrek'' is the No. 1 movie. Retrieved January 26, 2021, from https://ew.com/article/2001/05/22/shrek-no-1-movie/

List of DreamWorks Animation productions. (2021, January 16). Retrieved January 26, 2021, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_DreamWorks_Animation_productions

List of Pixar films. (2021, January 26). Retrieved January 26, 2021, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pixar_films

List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films. (2021, January 21). Retrieved January 26, 2021, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Walt_Disney_Animation_Studios_films

I do agree that generally companies and businesses do not engage in charitable activities for the sake of good intention. However, improving a company's public image or reputation is one of the many reasons why they would invest in such an endeavor. Looking at philanthropic organizations you can see how the application of internal ethics, as well as symbolic events and buildings, can influence public perception with the reward of more social benefits.

Take the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; they symbolize these types of ethics making them unquestionable in their good intentions. Besides carrying on the mission of donating their wealth to the most needed parts of society, stepping into the Gates Foundation headquarters is like stepping into the definition of what a sustainably powered building should look like with several aspects of multiculturalism and openness. All symbolizing the goals of the organization.

At first glance, the organization's goal is to allocate resources and distribution of wealth to other parts of society and the developing world. however, many have argued the Gate Foundation (like many others) is just a philanthropy scheme, as one Swiss historian puts it, and suggests that the billionaire-funded organizations are instruments for tax avoidance (Ho, 2019).

CSR for businesses may be used to improve companies' reputations and attract sales and labor, but a charitable organization can also use these ethics as a justification for philanthropists to excuse themselves from paying taxes to the government and other sorts of responsibility while maintaining a good public image that can remain unquestionable to the media.

Ho, S. (2019, February 12). Bill, Melinda Gates unfazed by criticism of wealthy giving. Retrieved January 25, 2021, from https://apnews.com/article/b1279711ee234b3ab3916d292d262643

Academia tends to promote a polite belief that all science and areas of study contribute equally to society, but one cannot help to notice that degrees in the social sciences tend to be frowned upon. The phrase “soft sciences” has become an implicit term for less legitimate science and has affected their contributions by creating an unwarranted imbalance in funding, public perception, and recognition.

If you attended a higher learning institution, chances are you have heard the “hard” and “soft” science colloquial terms used to compare the scientific fields on the merit of their methodological rigor and operationalization. Hard sciences tend to be more exact with the results they produce compared to the social sciences. Hard science would include fields of study in the natural sciences which include physics, chemistry, and biology, etc., while soft sciences include fields in the social sciences like sociology, economics, and psychology, etc.
The terminology implies several things such as hard meaning “hard truth” or “highly valued”, and soft meaning “less knowable” or “less valued” or even “easier” (Van Landingham, 2014).

These terms subtlety imply the lack of importance of social sciences within academia, but not due to their lack of academic methodological rigor since quantitative analysis methods in psychology and economics do reflect something closer to a hard science (although unable to produce exact results to difficulties controlling variables). The stigmatization perhaps comes from a position of self-reinforcement within society or ignorance; one example of this bias in academia was mathematician Serge Lang successfully blocking political scientist Samuel P. Huntington's admission into the National Academy of Sciences, initially citing Huntington’s methodology as erroneous calling it “pseudo-science”, but throughout the meeting mostly targeting his political views and character, rather than his merit (Diamond, 1987).

Universities and governments tend to subtly imply this too. Most state governments and political parties in the United States are likely to promote college education, particularly referring to fields like science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) as these areas of study as seen as job friendly and important to the economy. Throughout the 2010s, multiple attempts to defund non-STEM programs disproportionately compared to mathematics and natural science. The National Science Foundation proposed multiple times to cease funding disciplines such as political science altogether.

Most arguments presented for these proposals usually include their lack of economic utility or the inability of solving issues due to complicated analysis required, or this Washington Post journalist puts it, “the 'larger' the social or political issue, the more difficult it is to illuminate definitively through the methods of 'hard science'.”(Lane, 2012). If anything this should be a reason to fund the social sciences since further methodological improvements are needed comparing to the natural sciences.

Diamond, J., (1987). "Soft sciences are often harder than hard sciences". Discover. Archived from the original on 13 December 2012.

Lane, C., (2012). "Congress should cut funding for political science research". The Washington Post.

Van Landingham, M., (2014). "On the Hard and Soft Sciences in Public Health". Public Health Reports. 129 (2): 124–126.

A different agenda. Nature 487, 271 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/487271a

There are a variety of personality assessments that can serve as tools for psychological examinations for institutions and businesses, or just a 10-minutes pleasant distraction from your day at work. You can easily find some of the more well-known tests online such as the Myers Briggs, Big Five Factor, and DISC. There's some sort of silliness associated with personality tests due to the multitude of questionnaires coming from BuzzFeed that are mostly for recreational purposes. This contributed to the skepticism that assessments have due to their inability to provide an accurate measure of all dimensions of the human personality. Many even argue that personality tests place people in artificial categories of their ideal self.

While there is a fair criticism, a personality test also serves a unique role in personal development by providing a reference point of your traits, strengths, weaknesses. Assessments serve as a constructive instrument to know yourself, to be able to identify what you need in life, career, relationships, or otherwise. The purpose assessments should not be about accurately identifying deterministic cognitive abilities or behavioral dispositions, but to give an interpretation of the self as for who you are now and what you can do to care for and improve yourself. The true self cannot be determined, converted, or emancipated; the true self must be created (Foucault, 1981).

Knowing yourself now is more possible than ever with the number of questionnaires designed for business and personal use, but avoid interpreting these tools solely for diagnostic purposes. There is a tendency to use these tests to discriminate against other categories in a personality test, notably in Myers Briggs where online forums could become tribalistic and create a sense of exclusion in the workforce between introverts and extroverts (Jackson-Wright, 2019). We should use the data to understand others' perspectives and recognizing their potential talents, along with the awareness that someone's personality type does not constitute their entire being (Manning-Schaffel, 2018). Personality tests should mostly function as a tool to understand yourself to improve yourself, not to justify yourself or idealize certain traits or categorize.

Foucault, M., In Gros, F., In Ewald, F., Fontana, A., & Burchell, G. (2005). The hermeneutics of the subject: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1981-82. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jackson-Wright, Q. (2019, August 22). To Promote Inclusivity, Stay Away from Personality Assessments. Retrieved January 21, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/22/smarter-living/inclusivity-diversity-personality-assessements-myers-briggs.html

Manning-Schaffel, V. (2018, October 01). Why do we need personality tests to tell us who we are? Retrieved January 22, 2021, from https://www.nbcnews.com/better/pop-culture/why-do-we-need-personality-tests-tell-us-who-we-ncna914371

Making a cake in Minecraft requires the bare minimum of ingredients for what we would consider an eatable cake in the real world. The directions for preparing a cake in the crafting grid goes as follows:

"Place three buckets of milk across the top three slots.
Place one sugar to the left of the center slot, and one to the right.
Place the egg in the center slot.
Place the wheat in the remaining three bottom slots of the grid."

Although the texture and visual ingredients might indicate a vanilla base with a handful of berries on top, there is no evidence of these components ever being required to produce a cake. The existence of the base and berries purely relies on the interpretation of the observer but is not supported by the cake's recipe.

The cake would simply be a lump of wheat, egg, milk, and sugar.

Official Minecraft Wiki. (n.d.). Cake. Retrieved January 21, 2021, from https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/Cake

WikiHow. (2020, October 17). How to Make a Cake in Minecraft. Retrieved January 21, 2021, from https://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Cake-in-Minecraft

I would agree that the royal family has questionable finances that do not require taxpayer funding. But I don't think the institution should be abolished over financial reasons or by looking at things purely through cost-benefit analysis. Their nobility of bearing and upper-class pretentious demeanor is an issue as well, but I wouldn't worry about the queen using her war powers any time soon.

British society's relationship with the monarchy has shaped the cultural dynamics of British identity at least since the reign of George VI. With the end of the British Empire by the second half of the 20th century, the monarchy has become a stabilizing symbol during crisis and societal changes. With the outbreak of World War II threatening the existence of the British nation, primary sources of the time referenced the king as a symbol of stability, continuity, and encouragement (Foss, 2012). The monarchy has weathered events that could've led to a crisis during the period of decolonization as said in the 1977 article in the Times:

“The process of decolonization can never be easy, but it can be worse than unhappy, and it is in a large part thanks to the Queen’s influence…that the genuine good that was done in an imperial past lives on, and was not interred with the bones of the Empire”

The purpose of the monarchy might be questioned due to the internal struggles of the royal family and absurd finances, but there is no question of their positive effect on the general public during times of crisis.

Ideally, I believe the position of monarchy must represent one of outstanding citizenship, an example of what the population should aspire to be in terms of virtue and openhandedness. If they want to be maintained by taxpayers they ought to reform themselves to represent the ideal citizen, not represent old-money families, nor millennia of archaic traditions. At the very least they could reform themselves to be more like the Danish royals who at least try to live more regular lives and have more moderate expenses.

Foss, D. The British Monarchy: Symbolism and Salience in Times of Crisis. https://scholar.colorado.edu/concern/undergraduate_honors_theses/5999n378r

“A Lead From the Commonwealth.” Times, June 8, 1977.

I generally agree with this critique. The Prince generally argues for the use of tactics available to the sovereign to create misperceptions' to maintain control of his principality. Machiavelli cites historical accounts most notably Cesare Borgia's use of intimidation and image to solidify his territorial gains, so there is no question that the political landscape at the time did proliferate these sorts of tactics.

You could even say that The Prince's principle can be summed up to the exercise of power (or the image of power) to legitimize the purely synthetic link between the Prince and the principality since there is no a priori reason for Prince's subjects to accept him as sovereign.

The Prince doesn't mention the famous quote "the ends justifies the means" but he might as would have.

Although this is true for The Prince on its own, Machiavelli's later works including Discourse on Livy provide a more diverse analysis on the Machiavellian perspective. You can even say both works contradict each other since Discourse on Livy analyzes the history of Rome and argues in favor of Republics: "A Republic is more prudent more stable, and of better judgment than the prince" (Book 1, Chapter 58).

Because of these dissimilarities in his literature, we should put into question the context of The Prince as it might not be as straightforward as it may seem. There are plenty of reasons to believe it was a satire or a hidden exposure of corrupt princely rule (Mattingly, 1958). For instance, it's odd that a treatise written to give advice and gain favor from the Medici mentioned nothing about how to rule Florence (Namari, 2017).

Machiavelli, being a playwright and versed in law, uses plenty of rhetorical techniques in The Prince, particularly making bold controversial statements with the intent of making the reader assess their merit rather than blindly accepting them. These rhetorical techniques go way back to Plato in Gorgias (Plato., & Irwin, 1979; Quimby, 1974).

So it's possible that The Prince was written to the Medici as a long 'screw you' cover letter with the intention of exposing the abuses of power of monarchs and the multiple tactics employed to deceive their subjects. Instead, Machiavelli got praised as either a political go-getter or demonized as an advocate for tyrannical rule.

Machiavelli, N., Bondanella, J. C., & Bondanella, P. (2008). Discourses on Livy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mattingly, G. (1958). Machiavelli's "Prince": Political Science or Political Satire? The American Scholar, 27(4), 482-491. Retrieved January 17, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org.uidaho.idm.oclc.org/stable/41208453

Namazi, R. (2017). The Question of Esoteric Writing in Machiavelli's Works. Renaissance and Reformation / Renaissance Et Réforme, 40(2), 7-33. Retrieved January 17, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26398554

Plato., & Irwin, T. (1979). Gorgias. Oxford : New York: Clarendon Press.

Quimby, R. (1974). The Growth of Plato's Perception of Rhetoric. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 7(2), 71-79. Retrieved January 17, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40236876

Four years of the Trump administration has damaged the reputation of the Republican Party through an apparent decline of their democratic values. This concern has escalated drastically during the Trump administration’s last year in office through several attempts to hinder the democratic process, which raises national security concerns at home and abroad.

Former U.S. defense secretaries published a severe opinion piece against outgoing President Donald Trump in January 2021, driven by national concerns over the imposition of martial law to devoid the 2020 election (Swan, 2020). The former secretaries were also concern that the Defense Department political appointees loyal to President Trump had been attempting to obstruct the Biden transition after canceling briefings with the incoming administration and cause institutional turmoil by pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq without a viable exit solution (Detsch, 2021).

This is not solely a Trump administration issue; attempts by Republican policymakers to overturn election results in the contested states won by Democratic nominee Joe Biden represented a drastic escalation of a trend toward Republican authoritarianism. Despite Both Democratic and Republican election officials across the country have reported minimal irregularities during the 2020 election, 2/3 of House Republicans and a majority of Republican state’s Attorney Generals support the presidents remarks of election fraud (Ingraham, 2020). This election fraud resentment led to the storming of the capital which not only threatens the livelihoods of elected officials, but also exposed potential exploits that Russia, China, and Iran could take advantage of in the upcoming protests planned in all 50 states (Lee, 2021).

Carter, A. (2021, January 03). Opinion | All 10 living former defense secretaries: Involving the military in election disputes would cross into dangerous territory. Retrieved January 15, 2021, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/10-former-defense-secretaries-military-peaceful-transfer-of-power/2021/01/03/2a23d52e-4c4d-11eb-a9f4-0e668b9772ba_story.html

Detsch, J. (2021, January 04). Defense Secretaries Worried About a Trump Power Grab. Retrieved January 15, 2021, from https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/04/defense-secretaries-trump-pentagon-power-grab/

Ingraham, C. (2020, December 14). Analysis | GOP efforts to overturn election may do lasting harm to democracy, political scientists warn. Retrieved January 15, 2021, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/12/14/republicans-trump-election-democracy-texas-lawsuit/

Lee, Y. (2021, January 08). China and Russia could exploit chaos in the U.S. after Capitol riot, says a national security expert. Retrieved January 15, 2021, from https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/08/china-and-russia-could-exploit-chaos-following-us-capitol-riot-prof.html

Swan, J. (2020, December 19). Officials increasingly alarmed about Trump's power grab. Retrieved January 15, 2021, from https://www.axios.com/trump-officials-alarmed-overturn-election-results-a844d1d2-acb2-47a9-87ce-ac579458b1ea.html

The internet and social media have become the main platform to not only give voice to our views and beliefs but also expanding and reinforcing those beliefs through a variety of methods and algorithms. Social media companies constantly advertise a spirit of interconnectivity, friendship, and networking but can trap their users in echo-chambers where our beliefs are amplified.

When it comes to explicitly political issues such as the elections, BLM, Brexit, and the recent riots on the Capitol, individuals are more likely to spread information that they have received from ideologically similar sources rather than to pass on information that they have received from opposing or dissimilar sources (Barberá, 2015; Cellan-Jones, 2021). Individuals may even be insulated from the validity of counter-evidence and continue to reinforce their echo-chamber in the form of a loop. This can create pre-emptive distrust between ideological groups and the integrity of their viewpoints and sources (Barbour, 2020).

Reinforcement becomes more efficient through the various algorithms used to gather personal information to influence not only what we see or buy, but also how we vote. This perspective on social media indicates that we are more easily controlled by our preexisting beliefs than ever before. More optimistically, this has also increased our awareness of confirmation bias, misinformation, and management of these risks through constant self-monitoring of sources and bias.

Cellan-Jones, R. (2021). Tech Tent: Did social media inspire Congress riot? Retrieved January 12, 2021, from https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55592752

Barberá, P. (2015). Tweeting From Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More Than an Echo Chamber? Retrieved January 12, 2021, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.715.7520&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Barbour, C. (2020) "Echo chambers," polarization, and the increasing tension between the (social) reality of expertise and the (cultural) suspicion of authority. Retrieved January 12, 2021, from https://uva.theopenscholar.com/charles-mathewes/blog/echo-chambers-polarization-and-increasing-tension-between-reality-expertise

There are many problems with education systems around the world, so many that I cannot fit them all here such as lack of funding, racial inequalities, low wages for educators, etc. (feel free to bring your arguments). However, in this opinion, I'll be arguing on the constraints of the education system in the U.S. as a system of 'select for obedience' (Chomsky, 2001) and they're the standardization model that constraints creative potential and intellectual curiosity for students, or even damages their self-image.

The problem with compulsory education in the United States is that the system and institutions are designed to benefit certain groups, while other groups will be discipline and even punished if they don't interact well with the system. They promote a particular type of education that focuses on standardization of every aspect of your educational experience including assignments, test scores, behavior, attendance, etc., and in a way can decide someone's placement in society.

Educational institutions do more for the youth than just education and teaching certain subjects; they discipline the mind and body through training and correction from a very early age. Consider the multiple areas of discipline: time-management pressures for attending class on time along, handwriting regiments to improve our vocabulary, and even personal cleanliness of desks, cafeteria station, and backpacks (Deacon, 2016).

Western countries date their history of modern education and schooling around the 17th century as states began to implement national policies with techniques of moral self-control combined with efforts at maintaining order and imposing moral training (Deacon, 2016; Foucault, 1978). New educational procedures were later adopted around the late 17th-18th century including the application of forms of micro-discipline, management of sexuality, and the extraction of knowledge and reassessment of learned subjects.

A variety of systems of compulsory education were developed in Germany, UK, France, and later adopted in the United States not only to educate and direct the population but to transform them into well-informed citizens that will be able to participate in the democratic institutions and be competent in the of growing market economies.
The modern system of education is a very prevalent part of our academic life; we socialize and create friend groups in school, and spend 8 hours of our day being educated, and participate in additional recreational activities. However, a public school in many ways has become the apparatus of disciplinary social conducts and assessment of knowledge.

Simply refusing to do something the teacher instructed can be diagnosed with behavioral problems, and in extreme cases, the inability to perform school tasks can sharply increase the use of medication to control student behavior, even without a proper diagnosis (Miller,2020).
Additionally, educational psychology criticizes how standardized testing operates as a form of administrative control within the learning process, with stultifying results (Olssen, 1993).

For example, the system of exams for New York City schoolchildren required students to take a standardized exam starting in the 3rd grade and retained students who did not pass the 3rd-grade test (McCombs, 2009). The benefits for retention ideally would've helped the student further educate the student and develop skills to move to the next level, but these effects are usually short-term, while long-term negative effects include significant negative academic and socio-emotional impacts (Especially during secondary education), and a higher likelihood of dropping out of school later on (Examining the Impact of Grade Retention, 2013).

Chomsky, N., & Chomsky, N. 2002. Media control: The spectacular achievements of propaganda. New York: Seven Stories Press.

Deacon, R. 2016. Michel Foucault on education: a preliminary
theoretical overview. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1150418.pdf

McCombs, J. 2013. Ending Social Promotion Without Leaving Children Behind. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG894.pdf

Miller, C. 2019. Are Schools Driving ADHD Diagnoses? Retrieved January 10, 2021, from https://childmind.org/article/schools-driving-adhd-diagnoses/

Olssen, Mark. 1993. Science and individualism in educational psychology... Educational Psychology., 13(2), 155-172.

Arguments on how the power transition between U.S. and China would unfold have deduced that it either will lead to conflict, or China will rise peacefully. Both of these are possible scenarios but considering the U.S. foreign policy establishment resisting deviation from the grand strategy of liberal hegemony, and the increasing disputes on issues like trade and international law, it is likely that both countries will engage in militarized conflict.
Many scholars argue the rise of China may have potential consequences for the international system. Using the assumptions in power transition theory, China's relative power is increasing rapidly and getting close to match the relative power of the United States (Rauch, 2018). This power is not limited to economic expansion and military capabilities, but also territorial disputes in the South China Sea and expanding their geopolitical reach with the new belt and road initiative. Chinese policy actions indicates their desire to be the only superpower in Asia (Kim & Gates, 2015).
Both states are political, economic, and ideological rivals, and with the U.S. taking a back seat on international organizations over the last four years China has already shown the desire to change the patterns of economic and political structures and norms of behavior. They currently lead 4 out of the 15 UN specialized agencies (compared to the U.S. who only leads one), and created the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank which policymakers argue is an attempt to challenge the World Bank and the international order (Tung and Yang, 2020). Chinese leadership has also shown assertiveness in their political initiatives crushing protestors while silencing institutions and businesses that criticize their policies, including the NBA after a player tweeted support for the Hong Kong protestors (see Cang article). It is clear that China will no longer bargain with the U.S. and the West on issues they don't see fit and will attempt to change the discourse of the international world system.
Shifts away from economic liberalization have also increased distrust among U.S. business relations as China has been accused of intellectual property theft, currency manipulation, and hidden subsidies that put foreign businesses at a disadvantage. The U.S. is hardly blameless in increasing hostilities. The Trump administration has confronted China through trade wars and legal actions through individual lawsuits against Chinese firms and has led to the disentanglement of the friendly economic relation they once had and introduced a more hostile discourse U.S. politics (Moore, 2019). With the mobilization and annexation of the Islands in the South China Sea remaining a key issue for CCP policymakers, the U.S. is not likely to appease territorial disputes since they must ensure freedom of navigation operations and access to $3.6 Trillion in trade which is critical to U.S. commerce (Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea, 2021).
A confrontation may likely occur within the next 15-30 years or at the very least when they have the capabilities to challenge the U.S. in the future. This is not to say that China will become the dominant superpower in the world, nor that both countries will have a nuclear engagement. Simply means that U.S. hegemony is going to be challenged militarily by China in an attempt to become the only superpower in the region in order to achieve its economic and security goals.

Cang, D. (2019, October 07). Why Everyone Is Mad at the NBA About China. Retrieved January 08, 2021, from https://time.com/5694150/nba-china-hong-kong/

Kim, W., & Gates, S. (2015). Power transition theory and the rise of China. International Area Studies Review, 18(3), 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/2233865915598545

Moore, S. (2019, July 17). The Abyss Is Opening Under China-U.S. Relations. Retrieved January 08, 2021, from https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/17/the-abyss-is-opening-under-china-u-s-relations/

Rauch, C. (2018, February 03). Realism and Power Transition Theory: Different Branches of the Power Tree. Retrieved January 08, 2021, from https://www.e-ir.info/2018/02/03/realism-and-power-transition-theory-different-branches-of-the-power-tree/

Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea | Global Conflict Tracker. (n.d.). Retrieved January 08, 2021, from https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/territorial-disputes-south-china-sea

Tung Cheng-Chia and Alan H. Yang for The Diplomat. (2020, April 09). How China Is Remaking the UN In Its Own Image. Retrieved January 08, 2021, from https://thediplomat.com/2020/04/how-china-is-remaking-the-un-in-its-own-image/