JenReneeGilley

TL;DR -- Humor requires someone to be the butt of the joke, but when you make a joke about a specific group of people, you risk offending them. Sometimes it's unfair to make jokes at others' expense, but if you are poking fun at yourself, it's okay to make people like you the butt of your joke, even if it's offensive.

A passenger plane is flying through the air when it loses all engines. Before the plane crashes a woman traveller stands up and screams out "I want to die feeling like I am a woman!!"

She proceeds to rip off all her clothes and says "Is there anyone man enough on this plane to make me feel like a woman?"

A bloke in the back stands up, rips off his shirt and says "iron this!".

• Keep Laughing Forever - Sexist Jokes

While not the most offensive joke around, the above is certainly a kick in the teeth to women everywhere. How dare anyone imply that housework is what defines a woman? What is this, the 1950s? Am I on an episode of Leave it to Beaver or something?

And yet the mental image of this douche of a guy standing up and dramatically ripping off his shirt, only to completely flip the sexual implications on its head and turn it into a sexist situation, made me snicker the first time I read it. It's like, "seriously, dude? You just got a free pass to fulfill a fantasy before you die, but the first thing you think about is her ironing your shirt?" It's absolutely ridiculous, it makes the man look like an ass, and it's funny to think about the reaction the woman will have to his request. It also falls into the "sad but sometimes true" category of humor -- which is, in my opinion, one of the best.

Now, truth be told, if a man was telling this joke to another man and I overheard it, I would personally probably not get offended. I'd snicker and move on, because come on -- that's funny as hell. But a know a lot of ladies who would get offended If they heard a man telling that joke. After all, it is perpetuating a sexist stereotype, and when men share sexist jokes between themselves, it tends to poison some of them, even if only subconsciously:

"Ford and Ferguson concluded that jokes don’t create hostility to the outgroup where it doesn’t already exist. But the evidence, they said, showed that joking reinforces existing prejudice. If you joke about women and get away with it, those who are hostile to women will see this as social sanction for their views and behavior. The joke tellers don’t themselves have to be actively misogynist to end up encouraging others to be."

• PLOS Blogs - "Just Joking?" Sexist Talk in Science

So, maybe men ought to be careful about what kinds of jokes they make to other men. Even if the joke-teller isn't sexist and means nothing by it, it can reinforce and encourage sexist thinking/behavior in men who are legitimately sexist. And men ought to be careful about making this joke around women for obvious reasons -- it might get the man slapped, ostracized, fired, etc.

But, if a woman were to tell that joke, it would be perfectly acceptable. Why? Because when a woman tells it, it's obvious she doesn't really think that way, because as a woman, she recognizes what's wrong with the stereotype, and is making fun of how ridiculous the situation is. Even a sexist man can pick up on the fact that she doesn't believe women are only fit for housework, and in the woman telling the joke, it goes against his sexist thinking, thus (potentially) causing him to stop and think "you know, maybe this isn't as normal as I thought it was. These women are making fun of it, which means they might get offended if I actually expect them to do stuff like that, and it might hurt my chances of getting with a woman. Maybe I should rethink my values."

I know I focused specifically on sexism to illustrate my point here, but I believe this goes for just about any kind of joke that targets a specific, often vulnerable group. Some might argue that, even by an X person telling a joke about X people, that it would still reinforce the negative stereotypes and thus ought to offend others of group X as well (and sometimes, it does. I've heard plenty of women shaming other women for telling sexist jokes against women, for example). But, just as I explained above, when an X person tells an offensive joke about themselves/their own group, it's obvious they don't believe in that stereotype -- and most rational adults pick up on that, and know that this would not be okay in real life.

The only group we ought to censor jokes like this around is kids, who are not yet mature enough to be able to tell that a joke is being ironic/sarcastic, and who might take the joke seriously and internalize the stereotype. But, if among other adults who are mature enough to see the truth beneath the joke, then have at it! After all, you are X. You're allowed to make fun of yourself, even if in doing so, it's also making fun of other X people. Have a laugh at life, relieve some stress, and move on.

And, for people of group X who get offended easily -- remember that if the joke-teller is also X, then it's not harming anyone for them to tell a little joke, because anyone with half a brain knows that they're not being serious. So chill out and enjoy the joke. Or, if you absolutely can't enjoy the joke yourself, at least recognize other X people have the right to tell the joke if they want. After all, no one can dictate what someone else finds funny, and censoring people only forces them to bottle up emotions, and leads to eventual resentment.

TL;DR -- The problem with this statement is the word "anything."

I am absolutely certain that I have a face. I can see it in the mirror, touch it with my hands, and feel it when it gets punched.

I am absolutely certain that I need food to live. When I don't eat, I lose energy. When other people don't eat for long enough, they die. And I am absolutely certain that I do not want to die.

And, I am absolutely certain that pain hurts. When I touch a hot stove, it burns. When I get hit by a brick, I go "ow." When I step on a lego, my very soul shatters.

... Point being, if there aren't a few things in life that you can be 100% sure about, then you're probably doing something wrong.

TL;DR -- It's an interesting paradox on a very cerebral level, but is it worth interrupting our sense of self to ponder the apparent truth/falsehood of every little thing? Wouldn't life be simpler and thus more liveable if we took a few things for granted?

You make a wonderful point! It's an interesting paradox. We can't know for certain that we can't know for certain. We're too busy doubting our ability to know anything for certain to trust that we might actually know a few things for certain.

I get the whole debate on a philosophical level, I really do. Maybe I only perceive that I have a face, when in reality I don't. But the only evidence I have to go on are my senses, which may or may not be accurate.

... But seriously, come on. If our own senses and perception are all we have, then why not embrace what we have, and stop doubting our ability to perceive the world around us? Our perception has gotten us this far -- our species flourishes, we're technologically advanced to the point where survival isn't even an issue for most, and we navigate life just fine without throwing a cog in the wheel, disrupting our sense of normalcy and well-being by thinking up fanciful notions that maybe, just maybe, we don't really have a face, and everything we know is a lie.

And yes, I also get that human curiosity leads to great and beneficial discoveries. Maybe there's a rift in the space-time continuum that can be explored and exploited. Maybe by discovering that we don't actually have faces, that can lead us to the discovery of time travel, or something equally thought to be far-fetched.

But we also have to consider: Is it worth it to interrupt our sense of reality just so we can to go back in time and have a cup of tea with (insert historical figure of your choice here)? Isn't there a point to where we can over-complicate life so much that it sets our species' progress backwards?

All I can say on the matter is: I'm certain that I don't know for certain x'D

TL;DR -- Statement is too vague. HOW do male/female libidos differ?

What does the statement mean by "different?" Different how? If it's trying to say that males have more of a sex drive than females, then--I hate to tell you--this is undeniably false. Just ask my poor husband who has to beg me to give him a night off.

If it's trying to say that our libidos manifest in different ways, then it's still wrong. Females can (and do) go clubbing looking for one night stands just as easily as males, for example.

If there's some other way that libidos can differ, then I'd really like to know. But as it stands, this statement is really too vague to argue for. I'm half inclined to just change this from "commentary" to "against" simply because I don't see any way someone can definitively argue for it.

Aside from that, the whole "men only want sex for physical pleasure and females have to have an emotional connection" stereotype is old, false, and needs to die.

(Work in progress -- just reserving this space for my argument. Will upload soon!)

I mean... Maybe? But he still seems pretty capable to me.

Plus it makes him ultra entertaining to watch.

In all seriousness, this is an interesting opinion, and I'd like to know more about what evidence the OP has that Biden has dementia.

As for myself, I've met a man with dementia before. Biden doesn't remind me of him. But I'll have to research more about dementia and watch more footage of Biden before I can form a solid opinion. And even then, I feel like it's impossible to see true signs of dementia unless you know the person intimately, or know enough about how they've always been throughout their life to know when they are starting to deteriorate.

What evidence is there that Biden has dementia? I'm genuinely curious, as I'm still undecided.

TL;DR -- I don't think cloning is unethical, just as long as we're not contributing to overpopulation. It could even be useful in saving our butts from extinction one day.

I don't think cloning is unethical, but contributing to overpopulation is. Now is not the time to be popping babies out left and right, let alone clone an entire population of new human beings.

But if we ever get to a point in our history where overpopulation isn't a problem, then it shouldn't be a huge issue. As long as the person being cloned gives consent, then have at it. As for not having the clone's consent: We have no problem forcing babies to be born without their consent, so we shouldn't have a problem with birthing clones, either.

And if we ever get to a point where we're in danger of going extinct, cloning may be our only way out. In which case, we would need experience successfully cloning in order to succeed in saving our species.

Idk. I'm not a scientist. I just think it could be useful.

TL;DR -- Animal rights are human rights, because humans are animals. Equality across the board means that we respect all animals' natural diets, and that includes humans.

As someone who believes in equality across all species (and thus cares about animals), I find this offensive.

If you care about animals, you must understand that all animals have natural needs and diets. Some animals only eat plant matter to survive. Some animals need to eat other animals to survive. Some are omnivores that need to eat both plants and animals to survive. Trying to force them into a diet that isn't natural and doesn't meet their needs is only forcing your own agenda on someone else, and is cruel.

If you believe in equality, that also extends to humans. We are omnivores. And no, protein substitutes are not good enough, nor are they healthier or better for the environment.

All in all, if you choose to go vegan, that's totally your right and no one has any right to judge you. But neither do you have the right to judge anyone who continues to eat a natural and healthy, balanced diet.

As long as animals are treated humanely (only buy free-range meats to encourage humane treatment of animals), and killed humanely, and every part of the animal is used so nothing is wasted, it's perfectly fine to be human.

TL;DR -- There are way more offensive shows out there. South Park mocks the stereotypes that these offensive shows try to normalize, and encourages us to think critically about them.

There are plenty of shows

that are far

more

offensive.

The problem with these shows is that they normalized sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. and reinforced negative stereotypes that people internalized, thus polluting society. They often did this subtley, which made them slip under the radar for so long.

South Park is satire and mocks what these shows have normalized, and what people accept as "the natural order of things." It sets out to get us to think critically about these societal flaws and injustices. And yes, it sets out to shock and offend -- but with good reason. It's to draw attention to the show (and yes, to boost ratings), so that people are exposed to these issues and start to question what we have long held as "normal" in our society.

There's literally no way we can know if animals examine themselves or not. We don't know their languages, so we can't ask them how they think about things. The best we have is observation, which only gives us half the picture. Until we can crack that language barrier, we can never know for certain that animals don't think, philosophize, feel, and examine as we do.

And it's honestly hubris to believe otherwise without any legitimate proof that they are just dumb, unconscious meat sacks.

TL;DR: Rephrase, please? I don't know what side to be on.

I hate the way this is phrased. There is plenty that separates us from animals. We all have different body parts, configurations of those body parts, and biologies.

But we are animals. We are equals. And it's a damn shame that we're so full of ourselves that we can't see that, and continue to exploit and subjugate other species to meet our own fancy and boost our own specist egos.

Therefore, I can't vote on this one because it's completely and totally inaccurate. I can't be for it because it is undeniably false, but I can't be against it because it does imply equality between all species, which I'm for. And I'm not neutral, because I care about the topic. Overall, it's just frustrating phrasing.

TL;DR -- The phrasing implies that we're exactly the same, when we're not. We have to recognize the differences along with the similarities in order to truly appreciate what makes each species special, and thus, equal.

My point is that each species has parts/features that separate them from others.

For example, wings are what separates birds from land and sea creatures.

Gills and fins separate sea creatures from land and air creatures.

Venom separates snakes from humans.

Opposable thumbs separate primates from other orders.

We're all the same in that we're different, yes. And yes, differences can even be found within species. For example, I don't have the endurance or speed to run a marathon, but a marathon runner does. I am separated by my lack of athletic skill, and probably my physical makeup, too. So I can't go on a friendly run with a marathon runner and bond over our ability to run.

I likewise can't go fly with a pigeon just to hang out and appreciate the view together. I am separated by my lack of wings.

The problem with the phrasing here is not that it implies we're all the same. The problem is that it doesn't take into account all the differences, either. We have to recognize and respect both the similarities and the differences to see how truly special we all are in our own ways, and that's what makes us the same -- and thus, equals.

Not to mention, it'd be highly impractical.

Me: "Dude, car, I have to go to work today!"

Car: "Nah, I don't feel like it."

x'D

Our bodies are useless to us after we die, and good organs go to waste when we just let them rot in a hole. How about instead of being selfish with organs that we're not going to care about after we're dead anyway, we give them to people who are still fighting for their lives so that they have a shot at living a little bit longer?

And why should it be mandatory? For the best interests and well-being of the people we've left behind. You wanna leave a legacy? Start with your organs. That's the best legacy most of us poor slobs are going to be able to leave behind, anyway.

TL;DR -- I exist for far more than mere procreation.

Look, for the good of humankind, some of us legitimately do not need to procreate. Why, then, do we even exist at all? The fact that people exist who shouldn't procreate disproves this statement entirely. If our sole, scientific existence is merely to procreate, then organisms who can't or shouldn't procreate wouldn't exist.

And let me tell you, if anyone tries to tell me that my life is meaningless because I won't have children, then oooh. You don't know me very well, do you?

I exist to write. I exist to create art. I exist to be a support for others. I exist for my friends, my family, and anyone else in this life who my existence positively affects in some small way. I may not be popping babies out of my fun hole every five minutes, but I'm contributing to the world in one small way or another. In short, I exist for a reason.

TL;DR -- IQ scores fail to accurately measure intelligence in any given individual, let alone be used as a reference point for determining which gender has more brain power.

This would be compelling evidence, except for the fact that IQ scores are meaningless because they fail to take into account specialized areas of intelligence.

Since society places lovely gender rules on who (generally) specializes in what, IQ also fails to take into account gender bias and its effect on specialized intelligence.

The truth of the matter is, we basically need hundreds if not thousands of separate IQ categories to test an individual human being on in order to get an accurate read on their specialized areas of intelligence, then we can average all the specialized scores together to get an "Ultimate IQ Score" which we can then parade around and use to boost our egos.

But is it really worth all of that work just to have intelligence bragging rights? Just some food for thought.

And yet, ten years after that article was published, these widely-held stereotypes are still being disproven.

The article I just linked noted that there is greater variability in the size of men's brains. Not in intelligence. In size. And they had a difficult time telling which brain belonged to which sex as a result.

One problem that I have with the abstract from pubmed is that their study was conducted on 11-year-olds, who do not yet have fully developed brains. The ideal age group to test would likely be between 25 and 40. Why? 25 is about when the brain is fully developed, and 40 is just before menopause for most women. Why does menopause matter? Because during the menopausal transition, the brain undergoes significant physiological changes, which often go back to normal after menopause is complete. So, this would not be the time to test normal brain functionality in females.

In any case. Intelligence varies between individuals, not between sexes. There are no male-dominated ends of the spectrum -- only the spectrum itself.

TL;DR -- It depends on if you know the person well enough or not.

I think common sense ought to dictate when it's appropriate to hug someone without having to ask permission.

You shouldn't just randomly hug someone you get into a conversation with at the bus stop without asking.

You shouldn't walk up to a perfect stranger and hug them for no reason without asking.

You shouldn't spontaneously hug your waiter for giving you a free birthday cake without asking.

But your family member who you haven't seen in years and you love and miss dearly? Chances are, they love and miss you just as dearly, and want to know that you feel the same. A hug is a nonverbal way of showing this.

Your best friend who needs a little emotional support? An unexpected hug can go a long way in affirming that they are loved by the people in their lives.

Your lover who is craving spontaneous physical intimacy? Asking if you can hug them would definitely spoil the mood.

My point is, if you know the person well enough to know when a hug is appropriate and when it isn't, then for God's sake, just hug them and stop walking on eggshells around the people that you love. Society has gotten far too uncomfortable with showing affection, and people really need to chill out.

Yes, but it's not the only thing that determines behavior later in life.

It all chalks up to the whole "nature versus nurture" debate. Which one makes an impact on what kind of person we will become -- our individual nature that is determined by our DNA, or the way we're raised / the experiences we have / the environment in which we grow up?

Hint: The answer is both.

TL;DR -- Exceptions and anomalies happen which disprove that sex differences are innately hardwired. If they were, then such exceptions/anomalies would never manifest. Additionally, we all begin as female embryos. As a result, we're more hardwired to be similar than we are to be different.

I honestly can't think of a single example of a difference between men and women that is 100% hardwired. I think that anything can be subject to exceptions, and as such, the claim that such things are "hardwired" then becomes false when an exception pops up that proves otherwise.

For example: I have a friend who was born female (he later transitioned to male, but that's irrelevant to this story). When this person was a child, he (at the time, she) instinctively always tried to pee standing up, like a male instinctively does. If it was 100% hardwired for a human born as female to always pee squatting/sitting down, then this would never have happened.

So idk. The above proves that females do not always instinctively pee squatting/sitting. What was once thought as a hardwired difference between males and females is now proven false.

We have to understand that biological sex traits don't always line up the way we expect them to. Anomalies happen. Sometimes people are born physically one sex, but mentally another. Sometimes a female has more testosterone than normal. Sometimes males develop breasts. Sometimes, things just get "mixed up," and the line between these so-called differences becomes blurred.

The reason being: We're all cast from the same mold. We all start out as female embryos, then some of us gradually mutate into males in the womb. At the most basic level, we all start out as the same sex, with no differences. We're all hardwired to be more similar to one another than we are to be different. Thus, trying to argue that some male/female differences are hardwired, is moot.

It should be an option not only for the sake of the woman who is having to suffer through her period, but also for the people who have to work with her and bear her ill mood, snapping, and poor work quality because she feels like such crap she can't concentrate.

Anything that's detrimental to the overall well-being of the work environment needs to be avoided. Just like no one wants a sick person to come into work and spread their illness, no one wants a woman to come to work on her period and spread chaos and destruction.

One solution could be to just implement a mandatory three days off a month for everyone so men won't feel cheated and hold it against women. Then women can use it for their period, and men can use it for whatever.

But good luck getting the Workaholic Overlords of this country to agree to anything like that.

I'd like to see a man pass a watermelon-sized lifeform through his penis without crying like a little girl.

Sorry to be so crass, but that's just how it is.

So... You've experienced both and have a basis for comparison? That's fair then, I have experienced neither so I can only go based on hearsay.

As to the second point, that only attests more to women's toughness, that they would be willing to put up with it multiple times to reap the reward of having a child.

On that note, no one wants to experience a gaul stone again because there is no reward for the pain -- it's something you want to avoid altogether, whereas plenty of people would seek out pregnancy.

So really, they're hardly comparable. Apples and oranges.

TL;DR -- Humans need some kind of "god" to function on a mental/emotional level. Whether that be a diety, person, or object, we all worship something.

First of all, it ought to be "humankind needs God," let's avoid the sexist terms here, please.

I think humans need some kind of god in order to feel intrinsically good about life. Whether that be the Christian God, any other diety, or even just a regular person or object, we all kind of worship something.

Have a favorite text, news source, or (insert media here) that is your go-to for information, entertainment, or even morals and values? There's your bible.

Have certain tasks you need to perform daily, or before you do bigger tasks, that you simply must do in order to get the bigger task done? There are your rituals.

Have a person whose every word you hang on, who you believe in with your whole heart and mind, like a mentor, celebrity, or best friend? Do you give them gifts often to show your love and/or impress them? Do you go to them with your problems and ask for their help or advice? There's your god.

Gods can even be items that we can't live without. For many of us, these are our phones. We trust them to a fault to organize our lives, act as sources of information, and function as communication devices, among many other things. For me, if I wasn't a Christian, it would be my video game consoles, because I can't get through a tough time without them.

Humans naturally fixate on things. It's an evolutionary trait that helps us make sense of the world around us, and even helps us to function in our daily lives. One researcher even compares our "religion instinct" to drug use/addiction (which, to some, drugs are their gods).

Think about the people and things in your life. Who or what do you "worship" or fixate on? I'd love to hear your answers!

TL;DR -- Forcing people to carry on a conversation when they don't want to is just as dehumanizing as treating the driver like a robot. Be polite, tip well, and that should be enough.

Some people have social anxiety, and just need to get from point A to point B without having to face another grueling exercise in human social interaction. This doesn't dehumanize drivers -- it protects individuals suffering of a social/mental disorder from an anxiety-filled car ride.

Some people are introverts, and for them, being social takes energy, and if the person is already in a position where they need to be somewhere to do something important, they don't need to exhaust themselves just to make the driver feel special. People have a social obligation to be polite, yes, but they DON'T and SHOULDN'T be expected to carry on a conversation with every individual they meet.

Plus, sometimes a person just doesn't want to engage in conversation. This is true even for extroverts. Sometimes a person is tired or in a bad mood. In such cases it would be better not to engage in a conversation that may turn sour because the person is not in the mood to talk. This would only stress out the driver and the passenger.

Not to mention, sometimes the driver doesn't want to talk, either. Maybe we ought to be human and respect that, too.

Drivers are definitely people too and are deserving of more than just being forced to robotically chauffeur people around. This is why passengers should always be polite and tip well. But to force social interaction between two (or more) strangers in a temporary situation in which they're shoved together in a vehicle is to put a strain on people that isn't deserved or necessary.

Good point. I didn't know this was a premium-only option. In that case, the classism aspect would be removed if Uber would become humanitarian themselves and offer the option to everyone. Because tbh, it's us lower-class folk who suffer more from social anxiety, anyway.

Or maybe I'm just projecting. In any case, I'd be furious to find out that I could only have that option if I paid more. Uber is already expensive enough.

On the last point though, if a person already has social anxiety, they lack that capacity anyway (I know I sure as heck do). So why not alleviate their stress for a five minute car ride instead of playing psychiatrist and forcing the awkward interaction?

TL;DR -- When you go to eat at a restaurant, you are paying for a service in addition to your food.

When you go to the grocery store, all you are paying for is your food. No one is cooking it for you and bringing it to you, you're doing it all yourself. You do not need to tip the cashier, stockers, or anyone at a grocery store.

When you go to a restaurant, you are paying for a service in addition to your food. You're paying for the experience of friendly service, for a break from cooking your own meals, and for the convenience of someone bringing your food to you. You need to tip your waiter to pay for the service in addition to the food.

It's the same concept as a delivery fee. You don't expect someone to come out to your house with a truckload of groceries for free, so why would you expect a waiter to just hand you your food for free? It's a ridiculous double standard, and people need to realize that already.

And your waiter does more than just bring your food to you. They are at your beck and call, they make sure your order goes in right and comes out right, if there's a mistake they do what they can to fix it, they clean up after you, they restock condiments, they wipe down seats, and they take your abuse with a smile on their face. On top of that, they're likely serving 4 - 5 other tables at the same time. If your waiter doesn't deserve a tip, then no one deserves a paycheck for anything that they do.

Basically my point is that in return for a person getting to sit comfortably as they are being served, people ought to tip because they are receiving not only the food, but also a service. They are buying two separate things, essentially.

Some restaurants require a tip and include it in the bill. This is the exact same as a delivery fee. The only difference is that in most restaurants, they put customers on the honor system that they'll do the right thing and tip, but don't force it because they're too scared it'll discourage customers from eating there (even though this is obviously not the case, as the restaurants who require it are doing just fine).

I might also point out that delivery service workers also get paid a FULL wage in addition to the delivery fee, and no one bats an eye at this.

TL;DR - All comedy is the mocking of pain, suffering, or humiliation. The degree of suffering can vary, but the end result is always the same: Jokes make fun of something.

"Comedy doesn't work unless somebody's getting offended."
-- George Carlin

Most comedy tends to fall under the umbrella of "it's funny because it's true." As The Nostalgia Critic explains, "what most comedians realize is the more truth in pain you can emphasize, usually the more funny it is." People make jokes about tragic things like death, historic atrocities, and terrible contagious diseases all the time (I bet there are already quite a few COVID jokes out there). And some people laugh at them, others get offended. But those who laugh would obviously be horrified to encounter any of these things in real life.

When I say that ALL comedy is based on pain, I literally do mean "all." While I won't cover an exhaustive list of all the types of comedy out there, I'll cover the most well-known ones here.

Slapstick:

Slapstick is the most obvious example of comedy based on suffering. The Nostalgia Critic cites the classic Tom and Jerry cartoons as the prime example of slapstick comedy, in which the characters are suffering visible pain that would, if witnessed in reality, not be funny because someone is getting hurt.

Irony:

Irony has three forms: dramatic, situational, and verbal.

• Dramatic irony is where "The spectator is more aware of what happens in a plot than the characters." Imagine knowing what a character does not. Imagine the pain they must be going through not having the answer, or not knowing the tragedy/joy that is to come, or being so close to something yet so far.

• For situational irony, I believe the above article illustrates it best: "Situational irony comes whenever something that is totally different from what was planned arises. These cases usually contain a sort of contradiction and a significant degree of confusion or shock. For instance, an individual has been working hard for decades, investing less to save retirement money. The individual suddenly has a freak heart attack the week before retirement and dies."

• "Verbal irony happens when one thing is said by a character, but implies another." This can involve sarcasm, innuendos, and the like. Sarcasm is usually meant to knock someone down a peg or two, or to illustrate the flaws in someone else's argument. Innuendos are usually sexual, which is bound to offend someone.

Absurd Comedy:

Even for the comedy that is pure nonsense not based in reality, it is making fun of someone's silliness, silly ideas, or even their insanity.

• Knock-knock jokes and puns often fall under this category. The joke is usually that someone is using the wrong word for something (thus mocking their ignorance), or they're substituting in some innuendo that some people would find offensive.

• Monty Python's comedy showcases how people would realistically react in situations that are absurd and would never happen in reality. It's mocking the pain these characters go through in their effort to make sense of the nonsensical.

Note that there are varying degrees of pain within comedy, some so miniscule or subtle that most people don't even recognize it. The aforementioned knock-knock joke and puns are an example of this -- you have to think really hard about it to see the pain within the humor, but it's there. Funny faces are even based on someone's pain -- it's mocking how silly someone's face looks. Think about it -- when was the last time someone used a funny face to mock a teacher, authority figure, or friend? Even when parents are making funny faces to amuse their babies, it is -- in spirit -- mocking people who make silly faces.

So there you have it. It hurts me to say it, but all comedy is based, in one way or another, on the pain, suffering, or humiliation of someone.

I would argue that it can be.

Consider someone with anxiety, PTSD, or some similar mental health issue. Now consider that person being triggered by something offensive. It can cause stress, which is, indeed, painful.

Mental health issues are more prevalent than people think. My own depression and anxiety was triggered by something that offended me so bad, it sent me into hyperventilating and crying right on the spot.

Edit: The thing about people who are easily offended is that they let it get to them on a level that does hurt them, even if it's because they do it to themselves.

80%*, according to the article I posted.

Also I edited my above post.

"most comedy is based at the expense of someone" = pain.

"at someone's expense" has a negative connotation, and either means that someone is paying for something (either literally or figuratively, which one can argue that loss is pain), or that someone is the victim of something. Victimhood implies pain and suffering.

I'm into linguistics, so I'm biased on this one. But the pain I see is in mocking language use. It's similar to making funny faces: It is, even just in spirit, mocking the absurdity of the fact that anyone would use "lettuce" as a substitute for "let us." It's funny because it's silly, thus it's mocking someone's silliness. It's a very mild, very subtle form of mockery, but it's there.

My alternate answer is that the pain is in the person who has to endure the pun xP

Well done though, I had to reach pretty far on that one. I think rhetorically what I said is valid, but I will admit that no, most people would not associate that one with pain.

But if you're a cynic like me, you can see the pain in anything ;)

I think it's a matter of semantics here, but yeah, I can see that. Rewording my statement might help.

TL;DR -- Men need to accept that rape culture is the reason women can't wear revealing clothing without attracting degenerates.

No one ever blames a man for getting raped because he was shirtless and in shorts, washing his car on a hot day. If you went up to a man and told him to put a shirt on because he could get raped, he'd likely laugh at you.

A woman similarly shouldn't have to be covered up on a hot day. The whole "women have tits so we can't show those waaah" thing is getting old and needs to be put to rest. It's not a woman's fault if a guy can't control his boner at the mere sight of breasts. That's more a reflection of a man's immaturity than a woman's risqué behavior.

It's ridiculous to claim that the clothing is the problem, when the truth is that society has trained men to ogle women, clothes or no clothes. I'm not saying that men don't get raped, but on the whole, they sure as heck don't have to worry about it every time they walk out the front door, and they can feel safe sitting in a parking lot in an unlocked vehicle whereas a woman cannot. I had to yell at my dad the other day for leaving his door unlocked with me in the car, alone and in the driver's seat, because I'm terrified of being GTA'd right the %&$@ out of there. And the car wouldn't be the target, because the car is a cheap piece of crap. Yes, I could have just locked the door myself (and I did), but my point is that men don't ever think of these things unless something bad has already specifically happened to them. I've never been raped, but I know the possibility is all too real because I'm small and I'm a woman.

But I digress. Men can wear all the revealing clothing they want, but women have to suffer through layers of hot clothing because, as my mom always says, "a stiff dick knows no conscience."

Well, men, it's time to grow a conscience, and quit blaming women for your inability to keep Little Willy at bay.

"But waah, I see boobs and I can't help it, it's biology! I can't control it if I get a boner, so it's your fault for showing me boobs!" Yes, totally our fault for having these annoying, heavy burdens on our chest that cause more social and physical trouble than they're worth. We totally want to show them off because they're just oodles of fun to have, causing back pain and attracting stiffys we don't want. It's totally not biology that we have these pointless things attached to us, and we can't help that we have them, but damn it, it's 98 degrees out and by God I'm not about to have a heat stroke just because your biology exists.

A well-done argument! You are, indeed, based.

TL;DR -- Gender stereotypes regarding ADHD, and stereotypes on what types of behaviors indicate ADHD, result in an undiagnosed and untreated learning disorder in many girls, and misdiagnoses in many boys that are harmful and detrimental to their academic and social success.

"ADHD impacts both genders equally, but outdated stereotypes leave too many women undiagnosed and feeling hopelessly ditzy, dumb, or depressed. ADHD often looks different in girls or women. Unfortunately, many clinicians may still not recognize and accurately diagnose their ADHD."

I began my argument with this quote because it's essentially the story of my life.

My older brother was diagnosed with ADHD almost immediately upon entering school for being "hyperactive" -- i.e, getting out of his seat at inappropriate times, being "loud and obnoxious," fidgety, etc.

I wasn't diagnosed until I had almost graduated college. That's right -- I spent my entire youth thinking that I was dumb, that there was something wrong with me, that my brain worked differently from other kids because I was weird, and I suffered mentally, academically, and socially because of it.

Why was my brother diagnosed so quickly, yet I was left in the dust, wracking my brain to try to figure out why I was so broken for so damn long?

Because the stereotype goes that boys are more likely to get ADHD because ADHD = hyperactivity and bad behavior, which is associated more with boys than with girls. But the reality of ADHD couldn't be farther from the truth.

Let's first take a look at why ADHD is over-diagnosed in boys. First we must realize that boys are socialized to be more hyperactive and troublesome than girls, because their disruptive behavior is dismissed (and thus encouraged) by the age-old adage that "boys will be boys." Meanwhile, girls are socialized to sit still and be quiet, because rambunctious behavior is not befitting of a lady. The stereotype is harmful because it makes boys a scapegoat for bad behavior, and their "hyperactivity" is often the result of adults' preconceptions warping the way they view boys and girls' behavioral patterns.

The truth of the matter is that kids will be kids, regardless of gender, and our desire to make little adults out of them is harmful, when instead we ought to be understanding of their open, curious, high-energy behavior. It's how they learn and grow. But we want to discourage this behavior because parents are too busy, too impatient, or too tired to deal with their kids' high energy.

But I've gone off on somewhat of a tangent. Let's get back to ADHD. To legitimate ADHD.

Girls are under-diagnosed because their symptoms are often more subtle. ADHD manifests differently in boys as opposed to girls. Boys tend to have the hyperactive form of ADHD, and girls tend to have the inattentive form of ADHD.

What does ADHD stand for? Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The disorder is multi-leveled -- a child may have attention deficit, hyperactivity, or both. Since girls tend to have attention deficit without hyperactivity, their symptoms often get overlooked, and their inattentiveness is dismissed as them "daydreaming" all the time.

This was the case with me. I didn't cause a ruckus, so I was classed as neurotypical -- i.e, displaying no signs of ADHD or any other learning or behavioral disorder. I was just your average, everyday girl. Flighty, ditzy, dumb, always having my head in the clouds. That's what I grew up believing about myself. I was socially inept because I didn't think the same way my peers did, so I was often called weird. I processed things slower than most kids, so I was also perceived as being stupid.

My thoughts have always gone at a mile a minute, and while I may have seemed outwardly calm, inside my brain was always a turmoil of thought strings that were always tangled, and I never could get a hold of them to untangle them because they were always fluttering in the wind so hard that I couldn't grasp them. There was never a quiet moment inside my brain, and no relief from the constant barrage of mental squirrel-chasing. I couldn't pay attention to lectures enough to take good notes. I would always have to re-read paragraphs several times in my textbooks because I would forget what I had just read seconds ago. My grades suffered because I didn't retain the material learned in class.

And it made college a nightmare. So much so that I ended up quitting my intended career path because I just couldn't keep up. I suffered depression and had to seek therapy to determine just what the hell was wrong with me. And by the time I was actually diagnosed with ADHD, it was too late to learn the strategies and skillsets needed to cope with the disorder and save my tail from bottoming out my last semester in college. I was dismissed by my mentors as -- again -- flighty, ditzy, and unfit to continue my major. And to this day, I still feel inadequate, when the truth is that I was suffering from a learning disorder that, had I been diagnosed at an early age, I could have long conquered by the time I got to this critical stage in college.

The under-diagnoses of girls and over-diagnoses of boys is incredibly unfair and tremendously harmful to both genders. Boys without ADHD get meds shoved down their throats that can cause significant harm to persons without ADHD. Meanwhile, girls with ADHD suffer from low self-esteem, depression, and an untreated learning disorder which can affect their long-term academic success, and even knock them out of that career they've been studying so hard to establish.

This is a trend that needs to stop. The stereotypes need to be busted, and a focus on socializing both genders equally and allowing kids to be kids will help normalize their behavior across the board so that children with ADHD symptoms can more easily be picked out. And most importantly, we need to start paying attention to our kids' behaviors -- especially the subtle ones that aren't readily visible.

Because, believe me, you don't want your girls to have to suffer through what I did. And no boys deserve to be mislabeled and treated for a disorder that they don’t have.

TL;DR -- There is no set-in-stone, universal beauty standard, and even if there was, it's most certainly not objective.

... You have GOT to be kidding me.

The only "standard" is a social trend at any given point in time, which is subject to and frequently does change.

For example, the current universal "standard" on weight is to be skinnier than a toothpick. But the number of chubby chasers that exist in the world disprove that that's really a standard at all. And, in fact, beauty standards regarding the ideal weight have changed since the 1900's, where curvy women were once seen as healthy, wealthy, and -- yes -- beautiful.

Beauty is also individually subjective. For example, most people find that wearing makeup is an essential, do-or-die ritual that one must perform in order to survive out in the social world. I myself find makeup horrendously ugly and, 90% of the time, overdone.

So there is no set, universal "standard," and even if there was, it's certainly not objective.

Because people have a herd mentality. Trends catch on because people want to feel like they belong in a group, not because something is necessarily objectively standard.

There are plenty of animals who mate for life with a single, exclusive partner who would disagree with this.

So what you are saying (and do correct me if I'm wrong) is that we evolved/adapted to monogamy in order to reproduce and survive.

Last I checked, evolution/adaptation was a natural process.

Jeffrey Dahmer. John Wayne Gacy. Ted Bundy.

Probably the most dangerous: Adolf Hitler, because of his ability to convince so many people to commit horrifying atrocities against fellow human beings.

Some people are such a detriment to society that they need to be isolated as far away from other humans as possible so as not to infect anyone else with their sickening ideas. Their own individual rights become null and void when they commit heinous acts against innocents who did nothing to deserve the horrific fate that they endured.

Feminism itself hasn't gone too far, but some individual feminists do take it too far, and put men down as inferior, even so far as to commit or encourage violent acts against men for no other reason than the fact that they're men.

What this does is give all of feminism a bad name, which is why many people do believe that feminism had gone too far.

TL;DR -- Fostering a temporary belief in Santa actually encourages creative out-of-the-box thinking that can contribute to society in new and amazing ways.

I get the argument behind this and agree to an extent. But promoting magical thinking is actually a healthy way to promote creative thinking outside the box. As long as the charade isn't carried on for too long, it's not really a problem.

I was raised to believe in Santa, and it made Christmas a fun and fanciful time. When I came of age, I was sat down and explained the reality of the tradition in a positive manner. It made the tradition all the more special -- even though the illusion was broken, it was still a chance for me to play make-believe in a socially acceptable context, much like Halloween, and still maintain my young adult / adult dignity.

Today I write science fantasy stories where the world I create has magic rooted in a "scientifically viable" context. For example, how would teleportation work? How about lightsabers? It's encouraging thinking outside the box like this that helps us advance real life technology. Holograms now exist where they were once complete fantasy (bonus: according to the article I linked, lightsabers also exist now, too).

Sure, a magical guy who can circle the entire planet and hand out free gifts to good little children may not seem scientifically viable, but it's a conduit in which we foster creative thinking, problem-solving, and technological advances.

TL;DR -- Finding things "disgusting" is subjective, and it varies from person to person. You can't ban everything just because someone finds it disgusting. And who are we to judge what a rational, autonomous adult chooses to do, anyway?

Whether or not something is disgusting is subjective. For example, I find doing dishes to be disgusting because I get freaked out handling other people's food waste (I have to wear gloves to get any done). But that doesn't mean that other people shouldn't do dishes just because I find it disgusting.

See what I mean? If we made a collective list of everything that every individual person finds disgusting, and then banned everyone from doing them, nothing would ever get done.

As for things that are almost universally considered disgusting, take prostitution. It's a perfectly legitimate way to earn money, but I find it disgusting to lay with total strangers for a quick buck (who knows what diseases they might have!?). But if a person finds the work fulfilling and gets the bills paid, then who am I to judge?

And if someone puts ketchup on their salad, who am I to tell them not to eat it?

What about picking your nose? Just flick it away from me, and we'll be okay.

And if someone does something disgusting that you absolutely can't tolerate, then leave the room. I can't handle smoking, so I go away when someone lights one up.

If it's not hurting anyone, just leave it be. Adults are, well, adults. They know the consequences of their actions, so let them deal with it and move on with your life. I'm sure you do things that other people find disgusting, too. Like judging others.

Not only that, but when one tells a woman to "man up," they're essentially telling her that she's weak because she's a woman, and she needs to be more like a man to succeed. It completely invalidates an entire sex while putting the other on an unrealistic pedestal. The phrase is hurtful and unfair no matter what sex or gender one is.

I would agree, except that the American people are far too complacent to stage an uprising or start a new civil war. We're far too happy to let ourselves be distracted by fancy tech or popular media to do either of those things. So, our current, crappy condition is going to continue on its merry course whether we gripe about it or not.

Now if you'll excuse me, my Nintendo Switch calls...

Robin Hood.

Sometimes you have to do what's commonly considered "bad" in order to do an even greater good. If Robin Hood had just sat in silence while all the poor folk suffered, he'd be doing more bad than he did in stealing from the rich.

Men and women are both aggressive, just in different ways.

Men are usually upfront about it, women are more passive-aggressive.

Men are usually blunt, women drop vicious little hints.

Men get physically aggressive and will pummel you into the ground. Women get mentally aggressive, and will tear you down from the inside out until your self-esteem is utterly shot.

Each have their own advantages. Men are physically more powerful. But women are more wily. In a way, they kind of have to be.

Note, these are just generalizations based on what I've experienced. But let me tell you, the most brutal workplace environment I was ever unfortunate enough to be in was 100% female. Petty backstabbers, that lot.

I wouldn't recommend it because you never know who has what kind of disease, and who is simply just out to use you for sex and then toss you out with a bag of broken promises. But if you feel like you can handle yourself, I guess more power to you?

Idk. The idea kind of makes me feel ill, personally. But to each their own. I am an advocate of "if you've got an advantage, use it," because life doesn't just hand advantages out for free (for most of us, anyway). So hey, do your thing, if you feel comfortable and safe doing so.

There can be no absolute answer to this one because it totally depends on the situation.

When the positive outcome of a situation depends on mutual respect and cooperation (such as in a football game), then this statement is true.

When the attitudes/actions of the whole are a detriment to society (such as the Salem Witch Trials), then this statement is false.

I mean, it's possible to form a strong attachment to anyone/anything. And if someone is so inclined, that attachment can become romantic.

If it's possible to fall in love with fictional characters -- a more common occurrence than one might think -- then it stands to reason that a person could fall in love with a robot. Give the robot a personality, likes/dislikes, maybe a life story, and you have what is essentially a character come to life.

Also why won't Brynjolf love me ;_;

TL;DR -- God must maintain a balance to ensure that we all have a chance to live our lives to the fullest. Like a parent, God is Love because He rewards and punishes when we deserve it. And sometimes, bad things just have to happen to maintain balance. But God makes sure to make it up to us with all the wonderful things in life, as well.

Despite the evidence to the contrary, I have always believed that God maintains a balance between good and evil for our benefit. After all, light cannot exist without dark, joy without sorrow, life without death, etc.

It sucks, but it's the best that God can do. Paradise exists, but it's something we have to earn -- just as any parent teaches their child the value of hard work / good morals / kindness by rewarding them when all is said and done.

And like any good parent, God sometimes has to be harsh. Sometimes humans commit such atrocities (often in God's name, thus pissing Him off) that God has to collectively punish us. But when people come together to make the world a better place, society prospers.

So yes, God allows terrible things to happen, but it's not because He's mad with power; it's to maintain the delicate balance of life. He also makes wonderful things happen to make up for it. Because God is Love, life can continue, and we can experience all that life has to offer, both good and bad.

TL;DR -- Female orgasms encourage females to seek out males for a pleasurable and beneficial sensation, thus encouraging procreation. Duh.

Scientists who have been studying sex can't seem to figure out the reason females have orgasms. I saw a documentary on this once, and it left me shaking my head in disbelief.

Because it's really very simple.

Think of animals going into heat. The female seeks a male to relieve the burning need for sex, thus encouraging procreation.

Humans aren't much different.

Just because females don't squirt out baby-making juice, doesn't mean that their orgasms don't serve a biological purpose.

Human females love orgasms. We seek them out to relieve the heat, to procreate, or simply just for fun. There's no huge scientific mystery because the answer is quite clear: This encourages an act which can result in procreation. Duh.

Not only that, but [orgasms release serotonin and many other chemicals in the brain] (https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-happens-to-your-brain-when-you-orgasm), which has been linked to numerous mental health benefits.

So now we know why it's ignorant to not know how arousal works. But why is it sexist?

Because many scientists believe there's no purpose at all. Men need them to ejaculate, females don't. Therefore the almighty penis is worshiped again for its practicality, while the female orgasm is looked upon as impractical and, therefore, an evolutionary mystery. After all, why develop something that isn't essential to survival?

Except that I just explained its prime function in the survival of our species. Scientists, stop scratching your heads. You just got the answer from the horse's mouth. You're welcome.

TL;DR -- Bottled water isn't a consumer product, it's a service that we pay for to get convenient, safe drinking water.

Water is still available for free, regardless of companies bottling and selling it. But people refuse to go out and drink straight from a river or pond -- and for good reason. We have no idea what diseases or pollutants are in free water supplies.

When we buy bottled water or pay the water bill for tap, we're not buying water as a consumer product. We're paying for a service. We're paying for the labor of someone to go out and purify the water for us so we can safely drink it. There's always the option of purifying the water oneself if one doesn't want to pay for bottled water.

But no one wants to do that. So we're bottlenecking ourselves into buying water. It's not bottling companies or water companies that do that to us -- we're the ones personally responsible. We've grown so accustomed to convenience that our survival depends on others to do these essential things for us. If we want to live a consumer-free life, we have to change our lifestyles. But how many of us are willing to do so?

To be fair, you kind of have to feel entitled to water if, you know, you want to live.

Water is basic because it's a basic necessity for survival.

Now, feeling entitled to bottled water, now that's different. Because no one is entitled to benefit from someone else's hard work (i.e the people who purify and bottle the water).

Bottled water is not basic. No one needs bottled water to live.

As a woman in her early 30s... let me tell you... this is false.

coughmymancan'tkeepupcough

Just sayin'.

I don't know about mysogynistic, but I certainly do feel sorry for anyone who is legitimately named Karen, and is suddenly burdened with shame that they didn't ask for and don't deserve, just because someone decided that this was a good derogatory term for entitled white women.

TL;DR -- Religion is used as an excuse to to push agendas, oppress people, judge others, and conquer/take what doesn't belong to someone.

Not quite sure why the "S" is capitalized here, but I figured I'd throw my 2 cents in.

Organized religion isn't about God, or worship, or doing good in the world. It's about pushing forward agendas, judging others (often unfairly), and having a pedestal to stand on so one can say "I'm better than you."

I'm not an overly religious person, but I do believe in God. I've floated away from religion because of all the hypocrisy in every church I've ever been in. I don't even believe in the Bible as much more than a historical text written mostly by priveleged men with, you guessed it, their own views and agendas to push. It's not very humanitarian, it's sexist, classist, racist, and it contradicts itself often. I can't believe in a God who would put it in someone's head to write that tripe.

But I digress. The church I grew up in preached equality, tolerance, and brotherly love. But when a group of Hispanics came asking for a quiet space to worship in Spanish, they were allowed to come in, but then quickly forced back out again by racist old white people who claimed that they were causing trouble, when their presence was barely a whisper. It was complete and utter BS.

Churches and governments use God as a reason to start wars and take what isn't theirs all the time (think the Crusades and Manifest Destiny).

Religion is as far separated from God and what is sacred and holy as water is from oil.

tl;dr - A game should be experienced vanilla at least once. If you can't enjoy a game for what it is out of the box, then you don't really like the game, you only like the mods.

Developers put a lot of hard work and creative energy into the games they make, especially for such ambitious works as Skyrim (or any game in the Elder Scrolls series). This work should be appreciated as the developers originally intended at least once before the player goes modifying assets to suit their own whims. Otherwise, they're not really playing the game they bought – they're playing something entirely different, especially with heavy modifications.

You don't really like the game if you mod it before or during your first playthrough – and, in my opinion, you can't call yourself a fan if you've never experienced it vanilla.

Don't get me wrong – I absolutely adore mods, and I have over 100 for Skyrim alone (and nearly that many for most of the other PC games I play). But I also appreciate the games for what they are without mods. I still play Skyrim on the Nintendo Switch (a system that you can't mod Skyrim on) because I enjoy being able to play it on the go. Sure, I can't marry Brynjolf or go on a journey to obtain the Gray Cowl of Nocturnal, but I can still become a Nightingale and find all the stones of Barenziah and have one heck of a good time.

I've heard people who say that they can never play vanilla because "mods make it so much better." Well, yeah, of course they do – but you'll never know how much better unless you've played without them. And sure, we all wish for things that the vanilla game doesn't have. Part of the charm of modding a game you already love is to add in the things that you think are missing. But you need that first vanilla run to appreciate what's there, and to have the base to build upon in your imagination. That's how you make a mod that supplements a game, not replaces it. That's how you show your love as a true fan.

The thing about Skyrim is... I get it, it's a glitchy crapshow at its best, and an unplayable clustertruck at its worst. And I won't deny that modding it out of the box makes it a million times more palatable to the general audience.

But here's the thing: I still manage to enjoy it in all its raw, vanilla glitchy glory even without the ability to mod it on the Switch. Even though I've encountered several gamebreaking bugs in my Switch playthrough that almost made me quit the game entirely. That's because I appreciate the game for what it is without all the bells and whistles. On the PC, I have modded Skyrim to the nines (hah, the Nines), customized it to near perfection, and I still keep going back to the Switch version for two major reasons: 1) the portability (which has nothing to do with Skyrim's own merits, fair enough), and 2) the simplicity of the vanilla gameplay. Sometimes you just don't want all that excess goop that gets stuck to the bottom of your shoe when you mod a game to oblivion (hah, Oblivion). Sometimes you just wanna get on a horse and go fill out the map, or dive into a few dungeons or raid a couple of bandit forts without Thomas the Train Engines swooping down from the skies. Sometimes you don't want to marry Serana, sometimes you just want to have her along as a wacky companion on your quest to find floor-swimmers and floating objects and teleporting bards. Sometimes you don't want to be OP with nearly-broken cheat mods, free player homes, and summonable dragon mounts at level 1. Mods like that kind of take the charm out of the whole experience, bugs and all.

Don't believe me that playing it vanilla can be just as entertaining, if not more so than modding? Go watch Vinesauce Vinny's playthrough of it on the Switch on YouTube. Or heck, even just the highlights.

Anyway, my point is that Skyrim has so much to offer right out of the box. If glitches aren't your thing, fair enough. I don't have a problem with installing unofficial bugfixes and patches. If you're really spoiled to modern graphics (ugh) then go for the graphics mods, sure. But stop right there if you've never played the game vanilla before, because it really does have a lot to offer on its own. The quests. The characters. The story. The lore. The world and endless exploration there is to be had. Eat all that up first, and if it's still not enough, then toss on all the mods.

I love my Skyrim mods. I really do. But I'm a fan of the game because of the game, not the mods. Those are just icing on the cake.

TL;DR -- There are plenty of situations in which a particular person's opinion just doesn't matter.

A pedophile's opinion on child rearing does not matter to me.

A rapist's opinion on rape victims' rights does not matter to me.

A murderer's opinion on the death penalty does not matter to me.

Idk, maybe I'm in the minority here. Most opinions matter, but some people lose their right to have opinions on certain things when they commit unspeakable acts of cruelty against others.

There are also other, less extreme instances where a person's opinion might not matter.

I don't want a politician's opinion on what works in the classroom. They have no experience in children's education, and have a severe disconnect from the diverse cultures, backgrounds, and struggles of children in today's classrooms.

I don't want a plumber's opinion on my cardiovascular health. Maybe there's a plumber or two out there who went to medical school, but I'm going to posit an educated guess that 90% of them aren't qualified to tell me what makes my ticker tick.

I don't want a doctor's opinion on what that funny noise my car is making might be, nor how they would fix it. Chances are their best guess would result in my engine blowing up.

I'm not saying that people can't have multiple talents / areas of expertise. But as a general rule, we seek out the opinions of specialized experts because they are experts in their fields. We don't go to an expert of one thing and expect them to give us a qualified opinion in an area outside of their expertise. So, in an instance where we want the best qualified opinion we can get, the opinion of anyone who isn't an expert doesn't matter.

TL;DR -- If polygamy is restricted to 1 man + multiple females, then I'm against it. But if there's equality across the board, then sure, why not?

I'm against it if polygamy is restricted to 1 male + however many females he wants.

But if women get the same luxury, then by all means, sign me up for the sausagefest.

I think fraav made a good point about most people associating polygamy with religion and men dominating/abusing women. It's easy to perceive such an arrangement as commodifying women, turning them into baby making machines or using them as trophies to show off one's wealth ("hey, look at me, I can afford 12 wives!"). Granted, the reality of polygamy probably isn't like this in modern times, but women still perceive it as a threat because of how women were treated in the past. Take those elements out of it, make sure that each and every partner has equal rights in the relationship, and that no one is being exploited, and I don't see a problem with it. But if we adhere strictly to the traditional, patriarchal model of polygamy, then I'll take up arms against it myself.

Edit: Another point that just came to mind -- in traditional polygamy, the goal is to procreate as much as possible. We definitely need less of that in this day and age for multiple reasons, which I won't get into here because that's beyond the scope of this argument. But yeah, "spreading the ol' seed" as far as one can needs to be discouraged right now. Religious views on birth control do not help in these matters. Just some food for thought.

Edit Edit: Another thought that just came to me -- it might also be the case that women feel threatened by the idea of traditional polygamy because, let's be real, no one wants to share their man. I know I don't. Forgive me for sounding as domineering as I'm accusing men of being, but I staked my claim and honey, ain't no one riding that horse but me.

Men seem to like the idea of polygamy because 1) it fills a subconscious, primal need to prolifically procreate, and 2) some of them just want the freedom to bang as many women as they can. Women generally don't like that. We're very territorial creatures. And the idea of polygamy becoming legal is threatening because it essentially gives men permission to be promiscuous. No woman wants to take the risk of their man getting the idea in their head that "hey, you know polygamy is legal now, why don't we try it?" because once that idea is out in the open, it will cause resentment and doubt if the woman is unwilling but the guy is really into the idea. And no woman wants her guy to pressure her into that situation.

So, whether they're founded in logic or paranoia, those are some of the reasons I believe people have against the idea of polygamy. But, like I said, take all of the religion and one-sidedness out of it, and eventually I think people will come around.

I couldn't have said this better myself. Thank you <3

TL;DR -- The only benefit to a heterosexual relationship is procreation, which would be more of a burden on society in these trying times.

I disagree with this, because the only "benefit" to a heterosexual relationship is procreation, which we seriously need less of in this day and age. There are already too many mouths to feed, and not enough people who care about feeding them.

We want to bring more kids into this world without providing for the ones already here? We call those kids "burdens" and tout that "society shouldn't have to support them."

But if we're arguing that heterosexual couples are more beneficial because they bring more kids into the world, then we're putting our foot in our mouths, because the only thing more kids would do is put more of a burden on society. And for as much as people dream of having kids, they sure as heck don't want to take care of the ones who are already here.

In fact, I say that homosexual relationships are more optimal for society, because homosexual couples who want kids are more likely to adopt than heterosexual couples, thus alleviating a "burden" on society.

TL;DR -- It's an invasion of privacy to force celebrities to disclose their private lives. Celebrities aren't always at fault for setting unrealistic expectations. Popular media and even the average person are just as much to blame.

It's an invasion of privacy for us to force celebrities to disclose every detail about their private lives with us. I see the point about it setting unrealistic expectations for normal people to follow, but to be fair, it's not 100% the celebrities' fault.

They're constantly pressured into getting these cosmetic surgeries by their managers, agents, news media, magazines/tabloids, social media etc. that always criticize how they look. Not to mention, their very fans -- i.e, the average person -- are super critical of celebrities' looks to the same extent as popular media.

So not only do celebrities get pressured to always look perfect, but now we want to blame them for our own insecurities and force them into broadcasting their private lives, too!? Celebrities are already abused enough by the public and their fans who claim to love them so much. Why do we insist on making them scapegoats for our personal problems, too?

If we want celebrities to set a good example, then we need to stop pressuring them to be perfect. Because in doing so, we are, in essence, pressuring ourselves as well. It's a vicious cycle, and it needs to stop.

A person's sex is how you know who has what and who to mate with.

A person's gender is an arbitrary social construct. It is a set of stereotypes of how males and females "should" act, dress, what they should like/dislike, etc.

I think you're completely correct -- gender, as a modern concept, is pretty much obsolete. So it ought to just be stricken from society and replaced with a more spectrum-centered mindset.

We already have a word that is a reflection of one's biological sex. It's called "sex." We need a word for society's stereotypes. That's called "gender."

The only things racism requires are prejudice, stereotyping, and hatred or intolerance.

For example, to say that all white people are racist (as many people do) is, in itself, racist. It's perpetuating a harmful stereotype that inspires hatred and exacerbates an already dire problem. White people become resentful, and are less willing to let go of their own prejudices, which makes things even worse for non-whites. It becomes a neverending cycle, and it needs to stop on all sides if we are to move forward.

Don't mistake my words as blaming non-whites: whites are still to blame for 90% of the racism problem. But combating fire with fire only makes the bigger fire stronger.

TL;DR -- It's not just universities: Politics rules our public schools, too.

Universities aren't the only battleground in which teachers face off against (or play into the hands of) politics. It's in our public schools where we send our children.

When I was a student teacher, I saw firsthand how teachers have to play the system to get anything done for their students. Half the time they're blockaded from making the best choices in their classrooms by higher-ups who want to dedicate every single minute to pleasing government know-it-alls who stick their noses in where they have no experience and no understanding of what its like to be a student or a teacher in a real classroom. They have no clue what different children from different races, cultures, and economic/social statuses face in the classroom, and don't care to utilize or even consider teachers' own experience with and intuitions about each individual student.

No, instead of understanding any of that, it's a one-size-fits-all approach to learning, which doesn't work in a diverse and globalized world. And ultimately, the government doesn't care what our students learn -- they have agendas and will force-feed our students whatever it takes to meet those agendas.

Don't even get me started on state-mandated tests, which force teachers into spending precious learning time on test prep for tests that have no real consequence, and don't prepare our children for life in the real world.

Maybe when I have more time I'll come back to this post and share some stories about my experiences with playing politics in the public school system. And I imagine that universities, being monetarily driven, are even worse.

This one is messy. Let me explain.

No one should be disallowed from having children. It's not anyone's right to decide that but the prospective parents.

But it is the prospective parents' responsibility to determine if they are healthy enough to produce healthy children.

My husband and I chose not to have children because he has several debilitating conditions, and we do not want to bring a child into this world only to suffer like he has. It would be irresponsible and cruel to do as such, and I think more prospective parents should stop and think critically about their genes and the likelihood that their offspring might be born into a lifetime of physical or mental suffering.

TL;DR -- It depends. If the offender is trying to offend, or just doesn't care, then it's their responsibility to think before they speak. But if the offendee is prone to being over-sensitive, then it's their responsibility to think before they throw a tantrum.

Offenders who are trying to offend, or who don't care about the feelings/well-being of others, are in the wrong when they offend people. They need to learn sensitivity, empathy, and humility. They need to learn the repercussions of the words that they use against others, and understand that these words have power and can hurt others. There are instances where offensive words can hurt, both mentally (such as triggering anxiety or PTSD) and physically (such as enciting violence against others).

Offendees who always jump to the conclusion that offenders are trying to unravel their entire world need to stop and think: Is the offender really trying to offend? Is it just meant to be a genial, sarcastic, or ironic joke, and not be taken seriously? Will it really hurt the offendee to be offended? Sometimes words are just words. It's up to the offendee to determine the true nature of said words, and evaluate whether or not they're really offensive.

TL;DR -- Overall, E3 was just really underwhelming. There weren't a lot of games to get excited over, the presentations were lackluster, and the overall experience was disappointing.

My general impressions:

Not enough games to get hyped over. There were a handful of good titles, a few exciting ones, but mostly games that fall into the "meh" category. Very few held my interest, and as a result there is very little for me to get excited for in the next year or so.

Most of the games were pretty bland. Probably the worst thing that a game can be is forgettable -- and that's what most of the games were. I've seen some of the conferences twice, and I still can't recall the majority of the games announced.

The between-the-games entertainment was not entertaining. To be fair, with Covid restrictions there's only so much E3 can do to make things entertaining. But even so, most of the skits were silly at best, and boring at worst. The musical performances were pretty good, though.

Most of the big players didn't bring it. Microsoft/Xbox, Sega, Capcom, Bethesda, and several others had very lackluster presentations. Xbox boasted around 30 games, but only a couple of them were actually interesting. Bethesda neglected to provide us with even a teaser for the as-yet unnamed TES 6. Capcom was mostly about Phoenix Wright (not a bad series, but Capcom has a few neglected franchises that need some life breathed back into them cough Mega Man cough), and I can't even remember Sega's lineup.

The ones who brought it: Nintendo (Breath of the Wild 2, Metroid Dread), Ubisoft (Far Cry 6, Assassin's Creed: Valhalla), and Square Enix (Guardians of the Galaxy, Stranger of Paradise Final Fantasy Origin). Of course, these aren't the only exciting games announced this year (they're not even the only exciting games from these companies), but these are the names that stick with me the most, so that means a great deal.

It felt like they were reaching too far on some things. Don't get me wrong -- I know that Among Us is an insanely popular game. But a paltry update is not E3-worthy news. E3 announcements should be reserved for major updates, new content, sequels, etc. 15 new player lobbies falls under none of these categories. It's "announcements" like this that make it painfully obvious that E3 was reaching pretty far to find titles that would grab people's attention.

Idk. E3 wasn't all bad, but it was definitely disappointing on multiple levels. Overall, E3 just sucked this year.

The whole world was a better place when I was a child.

That's because I was a child.

Everything is better when you're a child. No worries, no responsibilies, playtime is all the time. A child has no real understanding of the troubles of the world because they're sheltered from it. So of course the country is going to be a better place during childhood. Kids only have a vauge sense, if any, of the world and its troubles. Anything outside of the bubble of "yay happy fun kid time" is foreign to most children. So the view we have to look back on is going to be rose-tinted pretty much no matter what.

TL;DR -- Hate speech puts vulnerable groups at risk, and should be considered a criminal act.

Any speech that intends to cause harm to a person or group of people should be outlawed. Period.

"But it's just words." Honey, words have power, and the right person with the right amount of charisma and influence can incite violence against others without having ever raised a fist themselves. All they have to do is rile someone (or many someones) up, and they'll commit violent acts for them.

"But what about my freedom of speech!!??!" Forget freedom of speech. A person loses that right the moment they open their mouth to cause harm to another individual. Just like a drunk driver losing their license to drive, a hate-spewer loses their license to say whatever they want when their hate speech puts others in danger.

Honestly, it ought to be in equal amounts... What's the point of putting more work on one or the other? That just stresses people out and makes dating a chore.

Let people do what makes them feel comfortable. If they want to be the initiator, great. If not, they shouldn't have to force it, no matter what gender they are. Society places enough pressure on people. We don't need another "rule" to have to follow.

x'D

Do small businesses/local shops count? If not, I'll totally change my vote xD But if so, then Stever's in Rochester, NY has everyone in the world beat.

I'm so distraught that I live in NC, boo ;-;

YES!

I highly recommend the sponge candy, the butter creams, and any of their chocolate-covered fruits are divine!

But probably my favorite is their lavender-infused dark chocolates. I can't even begin to describe how heavenly the flavor is! And so soothing, too.

TL;DR -- I used to be obsessed with this conspiracy theory. Creepy stuff!

Enduring, indeed! I remember reading about this when I was in high school -- it fascinated me endlessly, especially since my mom is a mega fan, so I grew up with the music and stories.

I remember seeing on one old website some (really low quality) images of Paul after the car crash. It freaked me out.

It's an interesting theory because of the implications that the Beatles were so massive, that they knew the death of Paul might seriously affect their popularity. To think that they would cling to fame so desperately as to cover up a band member's death (and denying him a public funeral/tribute) is ghastly and pretty devious, if you ask me.

I don't know whether I believe it or not (the evidence was compelling when I was a kid, but I was really impressionable back then, too), but it does make for some interesting conversation!

Now I want to go back and reread it all from an adult's perspective... Brb!

TL;DR -- Our planet may eventually become too far gone to save, and if we don't have a backup planet, or the available tech/funds to send people to it, then our species could face extinction.

There's always the case to be made that we might not be able to fix our own planet, and we really ought to go find a viable backup planet. It might seem like an impossibility now, but if we don't throw in the towel, we'll reap great benefits.

The more we invest into space travel and exploration, the less expensive it will eventually get, such as the way with all technology. For example, early computers cost [well over $200,000 USD] (https://www.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_PP2025.html), making them inaccessible to the average consumer. But eventually, with continued research and development, the tech improved, the price went down, and now it is commonplace for the average consumer to own a home computer.

Space flights, with continued research and development on the space crafts and tech, will eventually follow the same path -- meaning that, should a worldwide crisis come, most people will be able to evacuate to another planet, and not just the rich elite.

But if we halt space exploration, this will make it so that, in the event of Armageddon, only a handful of us may evacuate and survive -- though probably not for very long, as [there might not be enough genetic variation] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3399204/) among the survivors to make healthy offspring, and our species would eventually die out...

Just some food for thought.

TL;DR -- A little catcall every now and then wouldn't be so bad. In fact, it would be a compliment.

As a woman who is getting older, I'd honestly enjoy a little catcalling every now and then. It would be a compliment and a self-esteem boost. My usual response is to say "thank you, but I'm married" and move on, unless the guy is being really lewd, then I ignore him, maybe give him the stinkeye.

Catcalling becomes harassment when the guy 1) is being way too lewd, and/or 2) doesn't take the hint and keeps doing it. But a casual "you look nice today" or "you're a pretty little thing" would actually be refreshing to hear for someone like me who is getting older, fatter, and missing the compliments she used to get when she was young.

The difference would be that "you look nice today" means that I might look exceptionally nice compared to usual, while "you're a pretty little thing" is more in a general sense.

That is true about "little" being diminutive and offensive to most women. I think I personally miss it because I used to be really thin, and I would get that compliment on occasion (though I'd also get bullied for being "too thin" too, so it was a double-edged sword). It might also be that I just miss my youth in general.

As for "thing," I never thought about that, actually! I was just happy to get some positive attention, so ironically, I never thought about the nuance of being called a "thing." Sure makes me look at the past in a different light... Now I'm going to have to reevaluate those old "compliments," lol.

Still. I miss the positive attention. I mostly just get ignored, now. As a woman, that hurts the pride considerably.

TL;DR -- A very well-made argument, excellent job! However, I think there can be a time and a place for having fun with politics.

I agree with the points made here, and applaud a well-written argument!

That being said, I'm kinda mixed. I absolutely adore my Donald Trump Toilet Brush. I get to show my disdain AND clean my toilet with that god-awful toupee at the same time. It's a win-win.

I also think it's okay to have a little fun with politics sometimes. Taking it too seriously can cause undue stress, and because people are stressed, it can polarize them even further. People under stress over an issue can be less willing to engage the other side in friendly debate, and can be less open to listening to the other side. But when you lighten the mood with a little joke about the situation, people can loosen up.

Of course, there's always the chance that a little joke can trigger someone. So I'd advise to only joke with a person one knows, who they also know won't take the joke to heart, and would be willing to laugh with them.

TL;DR -- Shorts in the summer and sweatpants in the winter are better than both.

Shorts keep you from getting too hot. Jeans are heavy and thick, which isn't good in the heat. Tights are thin, but that fabric is constantly rubbing up against your skin, causing friction and heat.

Sweatpants are loose, warm, and cozy. They don't scratch you with tough fabric like jeans, and they give you room to breathe unlike tights, which are constricting.

Long live comfortwear!

TL;DR -- Monetary value is arbitrarily assigned to anything that humans find useful or appealing. Therefore, cryptocurrencies are just as valid as any shiny earth metal that makes us go "OOH, PRETTY! GIMME!" If it's valuable to enough people, then it's economically viable.

I'm not an economist, accountant, or anything even remotely specialized in understanding the nuances and inner workings of money. But I do understand money on a very basic level, and at its most basic, money is an arbitrary value assigned to a random shiny thing we happen to like. Whether that be gold, seashells, or imaginary currency that we make up out of thin air. If we value it, even in the slightest, it has a monetary value to someone.

Take gold for instance. It only counts as money because a vast majority of people in the past decided that they really liked this shiny yellow metal so much, that it was worth trading for food, goods, and services. People killed and went to war over gold, which is nothing more than a byproduct of geological happenstance. Is that what makes gold more of a currency than bitcoin? Do we need to start killing and stealing over it for it to count? Hell, I don't even like gold all that much. I prefer silver. Does that mean that gold has no value? Hardly.

Just because cryptocurrencies have no value to some, doesn't mean it has no value at all. If a human assigns value to something inanimate and arbitrary, it's viable as a currency. I play a game called Animal Crossing where the in-game currency is called Bells, but nobody wants Bells anymore -- they want items called "Nook Miles Tickets" so they can go search for their favorite villager to add to their island. NMT have become the new Animal Crossing currency, despite it not being the game developer's intentions. It's a currency now because people find it useful. They find value in it. And some people even pay real money for NMT!

Anyway, my point stands: If silly green paper and shiny metal coins are really worth trading for essentials such as food and shelter, then cryptocurrencies are no different. They're arbitrary, they're valued, and they're in demand. And for that reason, they can't be denied as money or things to be invested in.

Fyi, I hoard all NMTs I get in Animal Crossing to sell for Bells or trade for items I really want. NMTs have no value to me because I don't go island-hopping to search for villagers. But I invest in NMTs because other people find them valuable, and baby, I take advantage of that. My island is decked out. A wise investment indeed.

TL;DR -- Declawing a cat is body mutilation, and can lead to severe physical and mental distress.

The process of declawing a cat involves amputation of part of the toe bone. That's right -- when you declaw your cat, you are cutting off some of their body parts. Cats walk on their toes, and by amputating part of their toe bones, we're basically crippling them and setting them up for a lifetime of physical problems: Infections, lameness, and back pain, just to name a few.

"If performed on a human being, declawing would be like cutting off each finger at the last knuckle."

In other words, declawing a cat is body mutilation.

Imagine living without the tips of your fingers or toes: you might find it difficult to climb, to grab, to balance, to sprint -- all the things that makes a cat a cat. And not only is there physical trauma, but imagine how your cat feels when it wakes up to find that a vital part of its body has been forcibly removed? How would you feel? Disoriented? Victimized? Despairing?

The cat might try to do the things they used to do -- jumping up onto furniture, expecting for their claws to dig in and help them up, but slipping off and (painfully) hitting the floor because their claws are no longer there. They might feel like a failure, like they're no longer a real cat, because they can no longer do the things that come naturally to them.

For cats, their claws are a part of their identity. Imagine having your (insert most precious body part here) forcibly removed… you might feel as if you're no longer whole, no longer a person. Think of the psychological harm this could cause: A loss of ability, a loss of identity. Not to mention the long-term physical issues that could plague you the rest of your life.

If this was done to a human, the doctor who performed the surgery would be arrested and lose their medical license. Why, then, do we continue to allow this barbaric practice on our most beloved companions?

Declawing a cat is animal abuse, and there is absolutely no justification for it.

TL;DR -- Responsible pet owners teach their pets not to use their claws the wrong way. Declawing is the easy way out, but there are no easy ways out in good parenting.

No, the responsible thing to do is to properly trim your cats' claws every week or so. It takes more effort, but it's better than mutilating and psychologically damaging your cat. If you don't want to put in that kind of effort, then you shouldn't be a pet owner.

I have three cats. One I've had since he was a very young kitten, and I've always trimmed his claws without issue because he trusts me. The second is more aggressive and actually used to bite and scratch when I tried to trim his claws. But eventually he calmed down -- I taught him through rewards that aggression doesn't earn him treats, but being still does. The third is a kitten and is still learning, but he's getting used to it as well.

It takes patience, nurturing, and parenting to be a cat owner. Just like being a parent to your children. You teach them not to do bad things. They learn.

Alternatively, you can have your vet or a groomer trim their claws if you are unable or unwilling to do so yourself.

Edited for clarity and to explain things without the unnecessary sarcasm.

TL;DR -- The term "body positivity" all comes down to semantics. Fat people need a better name for the movement that isn't all-inclusive like "body positivity." That way skinny people can't jump on the bandwagon and steal fat people's hard-earned spotlight.

When I was a kid, I was constantly picked on for being "too skinny." And I was technically underweight up until after my high school years (I could never get above 88 pounds) -- but try as I might, I could never gain any weight so that the bullying would stop.

Now all those years of trying to gain weight has come back to bite me, as my metabolism has slowed, and now I'm technically obese. And I'm shamed and made to feel less attractive for that, too.

I think I ought to have a right to be positive about my body no matter what weight I am. I'm sick and tired of being shamed for not being perfect. I wish I could just feel comfortable in my own body and feel attractive however I happen to look. But being skin and bones is "ugly" and being fat is "gross." I can't win.

I don't think it's reasonable that anyone should be shamed for how they look. Skinny people are shamed for that little fat roll that they pinch and show off on TikTok. Skinny people are shamed for being "too skinny." And skinny people are shamed for other cosmetic things that have nothing to do with weight. So they deserve "body positivity" too.

With that being said, here's my actual point: The problem with calling it the "Body Positivity Movement" is that the terminology is too broad. Do you see how easy it was for me to add skinny people to the movement? Skinny people see the words "body positivity" and they can relate, because they get discriminated against for a plethora of cosmetic reasons, too. So they join the movement, and to be honest? You can't blame them, because the terminology applies to anyone who doesn't fit conventional beauty standards.

I can see reason and understand that the Body Positivity Movement itself began as a movement for fat acceptance. But language is powerful, and when you use a broad term like "body positivity," anyone with a body is going to jump onto the bandwagon. And they have every right to, because unless we're supermodels, we're all shamed for one cosmetic reason or another.

Call it what it is. "The Fat Acceptance Movement," "the Fat Positivity Movement," or if you want to be inclusive to anyone who doesn't fit conventional beauty standards, call it the "Unconventional Beauty Positivity Movement." As an English major with a passion for linguistics, I'm keen to the power of words. If you want to get across a SPECIFIC point, use SPECIFIC words. That way, skinny people can't horn in on your spotlight. Be exclusive.

This is why I voted against the opinion title. Semantics matter, and unfortunately, people can't see past what the name implies, no matter how hard you drill the truth into their heads. That's the power of language. It's a double-edged sword, but you can learn to wield it to your advantage.

So change the name. It's as simple as that. They can't take your power away from you if you seize it first.

"Third, and more conceptually, there is an ethical dilemma of bringing a person to life without their consent; this argument is far more divisive and difficult to pin down but must still be considered."

Okay, this is where "ethics" has gone way too far. What are we supposed to do, ask the egg before it's fertilized if it wants to live? It's simply not possible.

I agree that having children in this day and age is unethical for the other reasons listed, and more. The current pandemic is a situation in which one would not want to bring a helpless, vulnerable child into this world, for example. Talk about irresponsible (this doesn't apply to babies conceived before the pandemic, but born during it).

But philosophizing consent to down to the very cells and atoms that make up a person is just TOO cerebral, and it weakens the arguments for 1) this topic, and 2) the topic of consent, because people will tend to not take this seriously with such a farfetched theory being widely spread.

To be sure, this is a really well-written argument. I'm just concerned that people will tune out entirely on the last point, and might choose to disagree when originally they might have agreed.

tl;dr -- You don't always need money to buy happiness, but it definitely has the potential to. In fact, money buys happiness more often than you would think.

The statement is "money can buy happiness," not "money always buys happiness." If you take this phrase at its most literal value, then it is undeniably true.

True happiness is subjective. For some, true happiness comes from things which can be considered "free," like emotional support, time spent with others, enjoying nature, the experiences they've had, etc. (although I can -- and will -- make the argument that even these things are not always free).

But for others, true happiness comes from places that, unfortunately, do cost money. For me, true happiness comes from sharing what I have with others. Whether it be money, gifts, food, or even just something I made -- if they need it, want it, or just plain deserve it, then I want to provide what I can. I do this not so I can feel good about myself, but because I genuinely want them to be fed, out of debt, less stressed out, have more opportunities to enjoy the "free" things in life, etc. I want them to be happy, and when they are, then that makes me happy.

Unfortunately, doing this requires me to have something to give. Sure, that something can be one of the "free" things previously mentioned. But most things which can be given are not free -- like groceries, money to pay the bills, money for medical care, gifts, etc.

Even small gifts that you'd think would be free (or at least save money) can be expensive, like making a gift instead of buying one. To make a gift, you need the materials to work with. Sometimes these can be free, but depending on the gift, they can also be expensive. I make jewelry out of semiprecious gems that I tumble and polish myself, and I give these as gifts from time to time. You'd think that it would be cheaper than going out and spending a hundred or more on a commercial necklace made from the very same gemstones. You might even think that it would be free because I could go out and pluck rocks from the ground for free. But the stones cost a pretty penny to shape, polish, and cut -- I need a rock tumbler, the rocks themselves, at least three grit sizes (one for shaping, one for smoothing, and one for refining), polish, a drill press and a Dremel, drill bits and cutting wheels (which often need to be diamond-tipped to cut harder rocks), jewelry wire, findings, special jewelry glue... it has cost hundreds, and I don't even have all the machinery I'd like to have to make rock tumbling, cutting, and bead-making a whole heck of a lot easier (those machines would cost over a thousand bucks).

All that, for just one necklace or bracelet -- a so-called "free handmade gift instead of a bought one."

Okay, what about a smaller gift, like a drawing or painting? Sketchbooks, pencils, paints, brushes, canvases, misc. art supplies, digital art apps, the devices to run said art apps on, etc. all cost money.

If you want to get really technical, even something that you can make from things you find for free requires labor, which requires energy, which requires food, which requires money. Emotional support also requires energy (and in many cases, a lot of it). Spending time with someone might require travel or taking time off of work, which costs money. Experiences and memories made often required money to make them happen in the first place -- even a learning experience you had in school (which was free for you) was paid for by taxpayers and/or the government.

Look, I'm not saying that money can always buy happiness. Sometimes just basking in the sun makes me happy -- and as much as I'm sure some people would love to, there's no one who can charge me for that. And sometimes, money can even cause grief or harm. But, again, the key phrase here is "can buy," not "always buys" -- which is (in my opinion) indisputably true.

Technically, money does buy friends and family. You need money to feed your family. You need money to give gifts to your friends. You need money to help a fellow person out. Sure, there's no "friends and family store" that you can go to and literally buy a sibling or best buddy, but maintaining your relationship with the ones you love requires money at some very basic level.

It didn't always used to be this way. We were as wild and free as animals once and didn't need money to survive. But we've now built our entire lives and cultures around money, and unless we drop everything and run back out into the wild, we can't go back now. We've sealed our own fate and enslaved ourselves to the Mighty Dollar.

tl;dr -- It's not always cultural appropriation to show appreciation for something you like from another culture.

I'm anticipating a lot of hate for this, but I'm tired of being afraid to speak my mind. I think it's important that this be said -- so, before you raise the pitchforks, please hear me out.

It's a shame we can't appreciate things about other cultures without being accused of cultural appropriation. All our lives we're taught to learn about other cultures and celebrate diversity, but when we actually do as such, suddenly we're racist.

I'm not saying it's always okay to mimic things from another culture. Some people legitimately do it with hurtful intentions, and they ought to be shamed, canceled, or whatever trending social punishment is effective at the time.

But I am saying that it's not always cultural appropriation for someone of a different culture to wear a kimono, listen to rap music, or show any other kind of appreciation for other cultures. Sometimes it's literally just something that a person loves, and they want to show that love and maybe even teach others about how great this other culture is.

tl;dr -- Dairy isn't an enemy food. Nor is any other food -- it just depends on many factors as to which ones are healthy for a particular individual or not.

Honestly, the same can be said for just about any food. It all depends on a multitude of factors -- how much you consume, how often, what variety, freshness, your own genetic predispositions, metabolism, whether the food is organic or not, etc. Instead of going on a hive mind warpath against certain foods, we need to individually pay attention to what each food does to our bodies, and make rational food choices from there. I have a friend who absolutely cannot tolerate most foods, even some foods that are considered healthy and staple for the general population. I have another friend who can get away with eating anything and I hate them because I'm so jealous. So it all depends.

tl;dr -- Everyone has the right to free speech. But just because you can say something, doesn't mean you should.

The way I see it, freedom of speech is an inalienable right -- of that there is no doubt.

But one must also use common sense and exercise this right wisely. For example, going around spouting hate speech in public might be your "right," but if you say the wrong thing, it could also likely get you lynched... and it would be no one's fault but your own.

Don't poke the bear, as they say. Maybe it's an overreaction for the bear to eat you. But you knew that the bear has teeth, and you should have had more sense than to mess with the bear to begin with.

And as far as I'm concerned, that bear has every right to see you as a threat and take action. You go into its cave, disrupt its peace, and slap it in the face with your self-righteous words of hatred and intolerance. Most people will agree that if you get eaten, you only brought it upon yourself. Some might even say you deserve it.

This lesson even applies to those of us who don't go around spouting hate speech. It's a matter of self-preservation. For example, I would never insult a person who has a gun to my head. You can kinda expect that I'd end up at the bottom of the ocean if I did. It would kinda be my own stupid fault.

Maybe it's true that no one should have to be afraid to speak their mind -- but the sad truth is, that's not reality. The world is imperfect, unfair, and even cruel -- and honey, I don't know about you, but I'd much rather survive than tell the guy with a gun to go to hell.

"Vaccines go beyond a question of personal liberty. In a civil society, one should have control over their body, as long as their actions do not harm others. In the case of vaccines, they likely will. Individual choice of forgoing vaccines increases risks for several categories of people."

Thank you.

I, for one, would rather be "forced" into getting vaccinated than kill my husband -- a type 1 diabetic -- all in the name of "personal liberty."

Personal liberty does not outweigh public safety. Would a person really want to be a contributing factor to the deaths of those with weakened immune systems? To the deaths of innocent children? To the extinction of our species? I guess some might -- in their case, they ought to be incarcerated for mass murder. Or at least quarantined to prevent mass murder. That is, if they don't die from the disease they refused to be vaccinated against first xD

I may seem like I'm being overly dramatic or harsh. But I imagine my nephew -- a child with asthma -- my diabetic husband, or my elderly parents dying from Covid, and I see absolute red. I'm sure many with at-risk family members feel the same.

How so?

This year, our professional seminar changed from 1:00pm to 2:00pm without warning because of DST, and I had whiplash from trying to figure out why no one was there at 1:00pm, then suddenly remembering that the time had changed...

As someone with ADHD who is already horrible with keeping track of time, I'm entirely put off by having to uproot my carefully-crafted schedule and rewire my brain for an entirely different timeframe, and then having to convert BACK to my original schedule only a few months later. It makes me hate life, the world, and everything in it. DST is the devil.

I honestly want to see someone's argument that DST should stay in place. Go ahead. Convince me. Because my only experience with DST is complete and utter pain.

Unfortunately, you are exactly right. We've already seen the consequences of banning alcohol with the Prohibition Era in 1920s America. Not only did prohibition cause more problems than it solved (i.e. increased poverty, unsafe bootlegging practices, increased crime rates, violence, and bolstering criminals such as Al Capone ), but it was quickly squashed when the government realized that legalizing alcohol would create more jobs during a time when unemployment was at an all-time high during the Great Depression.

Wow. This is actually a thing? I mean... :/

I use a period depending on the context. Most of the time, I leave it off to leave the conversation loose, casual, and open. But when I'm trying to make a point, I end it with a period. So yeah, maybe it is a bit aggressive? But it doesn't mean I'm being aggressive towards the person I'm texting. I might just be making a statement in general -- and at that point, if we're texting back and forth, and you don't know from the context of the conversation when I'm doing that, then I'm sorry, I can't help you learn basic communication skills...

These are the same skills we learn in face-to-face or over-the-phone conversations, people. It's called using context clues to figure out what people mean. Learn how to adapt this to the new format, and stop making baseless assumptions on someone's level of "aggression" -- especially if you know that person well enough to be able to tell the difference.

I know a lot of people aren't going to like me saying this, but it all seems like a case of people being over-sensitive, tbh.

Disclaimer: I actually do believe that history is an important school subject, but seeing as there are no "Against" arguments for this one, I thought it might be fun to play "devil's advocate" and throw an unpopular opinion into the mix. Note, however, that I base my argument on some of my own personal experiences, and on one point that I do feel is very, very true...

tl;dr -- Today's history classes involve rote memorization of contextless dates and facts, with little to no practical emphasis on how this knowledge can be used to understand the world today. This makes history a pointless subject, and a waste of everyone's time.

History, as it is taught in K-12 schools today, is tedious, boring, and pointless. Instead of teaching historical context and how it is relevant to today's world, students are forced to memorize dates and facts with little to no meaning on their own. Rote memorization does not equal learning. Without a true understanding of the significance and relevance of historical events, students gain nothing from history classes, resulting in a waste of time and resources.

I remember very little from history classes in my K-12 experience. We would read a chapter, write down names and dates, define key terms, and answer generic questions at the end of the chapter. Tests were almost always multiple choice, with very few mind-probing questions that made the learning material relevant and useful in understanding the world today.

The problem is in the way that history is taught. If it was taught with more of an emphasis on critical thinking and practical, real-world applications, then history would indeed be an important subject in school. But as it stands today, it's only a means to prepare for state-mandated tests, which are meant more for the sake of holding teachers' feet to the fire than actually facilitating student learning. Until serious reforms are made to the curriculum, it's a waste of everyone's time -- time which is precious, especially for our students.

"... but when it comes to mental health, we should focus on researched methods."

According to the OP's source, prayer as a mental health exercise has been researched in psychological studies. So it is a researched method.

Not arguing either way, mind you. Just wanted to point that out.

"Cedars Sinai reports that essential oils can contain mild reactions such as skin irritation."

Which is why most brands explicitly tell you to mix your EOs with a carrier oil if you intend to use them on your skin.

Negative side effects of EO use can come from 1) not properly following instructions and 2) having allergic reactions.

In other words, they come with the same potential side effect issues that are par for the course with any medication.

tl;dr – Old-school grammarians would have us believe that adapting singular "they/them" to use as non-binary pronouns shouldn't be allowed because "it's confusing." But not only is it not confusing to the modern mind (people already use it this way anyway), it's also being taught by well-respected scholarly bodies as grammatically correct language.

As we move towards accepting and normalizing the idea of gender existing on a non-binary spectrum, our language naturally needs to adapt. Despite opposition from a dying breed of old-school grammarians, a majority of today's teachers have already accepted the use of singular "they/them" as pronouns for non-binary persons.

But the use of singular "they/them" is still being disputed, and the argument against its grammatical legitimacy is really weak: "It's confusing." But we have been using singular "they/them" to describe persons of unknown gender for centuries, and it would take little to no effort to adapt it just slightly to address a non-binary person by their preferred pronouns. Many people already do so anyway, and quite naturally. In fact, back when I was in school, teachers corrected us all the time for doing this without even thinking – for us, speaking this way was as natural as breathing.

(If you ask me, the only reason old-school grammarians find it confusing is because they find the idea of non-binary gender confusing – not the actual grammar itself. But hey, that's just me speculating about biased individuals who refuse to acknowledge a non-binary person's basic human rights).

Teachers and students are already being trained in the modern use of singular "they/them" through well-renowned scholarly websites such as Purdue Owl, which has an entire article explaining its usage as "gender-inclusive language," and highlights the reasons why students should be using gender-inclusive language in their writing. Even more notable is that the American Psychological Association (APA) has accepted and now promotes singular "they/them" as proper non-binary pronouns.

So, old-school grammarians, I think it's high time to give up the fight. Times, and modern language conventions, are changing – adapt or be left behind, it's your choice.

tl;dr – Not all Mary Sues are terrible characters. In fact, some of our most famous and beloved characters of all time are Mary Sues.

First, a definition: "Mary Sue" is a character archetype in which a character is written without any flaws, or is always incredibly good at something/everything they do.

I get so tired of hearing people complain about Mary Sues. It seems that every time a movie with a strong female lead comes out, I almost immediately hear someone cry about the main character being a Mary Sue. Most of the time, the word is misused (e.g. Rey from Star Wars is not a Mary Sue because she is flawed, and isn't always perfect at everything she does). But even when the term is used correctly to identify a character's archetype, it's always used in such a negative fashion.

There are plenty of beloved characters that fall under the "Mary Sue" category. Mary Poppins, Luke Skywalker, and James Bond are some famous examples. What makes these characters so timeless and loveable? Mary Poppins is nurturing and whimsical – a stern disciplinarian, but also kind and fun. Luke Skywalker is the "zero to hero" archetype we all love, because he gives us hope for a better future. James Bond is just plain cool, and represents an unattainable-but-hey-we-can-dream lifestyle of action, adventure, and always winning the love-interest's heart.

I think people tire of Mary Sues because there are so many that are poorly-written. At worst, Mary Sues can be uninteresting. Maybe they lack flaws that would otherwise round a character out, or maybe everything always goes their way and nothing bad ever happens to them. Maybe they have no personality and are just a tool to drive the plot along. Bland characters make for bland stories, and there is no worse kind of a story than a boring one.

But for those Mary Sues in our most beloved tales, they tend to be interesting, engaging, and charming. They enhance a story, not just push it along. Heck, they are the story. And we love them for a reason.

x'D

tl;dr -- Widening highways can also lead to more road accidents.

Not to mention the fact that, the more lanes there are, the more opportunities for accidents that slow traffic down even further and pose a threat to public safety. The more often people change lanes, the more likely they are to get into an accident.

No, I don't have any statistics to back this up -- it all comes from experience and observation. I'm on the expressway all the time because I'm constantly going back and forth between two cities, and I've seen too many lane changes almost become accidents because:

1) people aren't using their turn signals,

2) people change lanes abruptly and without warning,

3) surprises turn up in people's blind spots (and they aren't always checking their blind spots),

4) people travel at varying speeds, and it's sometimes hard to judge if one has enough time to change lanes without getting hit,

5) there are drivers who like to go at demon-speeds and pass every other driver on the road, utilizing every single lane they can possibly maneuver into, and

6) sometimes people simply don't pay enough attention when changing lanes.

So, suffice it to say, adding more lanes only exacerbates these issues.

"As a student, I also find the U.S. education unfairly expensive. The price tag has caused many problems. That said, I try to remember that we students do not represent the group most in need."

What group would you consider to be the most in need? I have some ideas of my own in mind, but I'm curious as to what group you're thinking of, specifically.

"Negative incentives (like fines) should be avoided, however, as this will drive companies to outsource production to unregulated countries."

Probably a dumb question, but why would negative incentives drive companies to outsource production?

tl;dr – Teachers who only teach in order to collect a paycheck need to quit teaching, because they obviously don't care about the education and welfare of our students. This is a detriment because these teachers only put in the bare minimum, and don't provide the supports that our students need to succeed in school.

When I was student teaching, I once heard a teacher flat-out tell one of her troubled students, "I don't care whether you pass or fail. At the end of the day, I still get a paycheck."

This is a teacher who has failed her students, and I don't just mean grade-wise. A teacher is supposed to care whether their students pass or fail – it is their duty to help their students learn, grow, and eventually be able to stand on their own two feet. This student is now at a disadvantage because his teacher gave up on him – she took away the scaffolding that she was supposed to have provided before he was ready to step away from it and stand on his own.

I don't care how much trouble a student is. If you can't handle it, you shouldn't be a teacher. If you're so quick to give up on a student who is struggling both academically and emotionally, then you need to quit the very moment you give up. A teacher like this – who only shows up to do the bare minimum, hand out meaningless grades, and collect a paycheck – is a detriment to our students and to our society as a whole.

(… Let's not even get into the fact that if you're only showing up for a paycheck, you are laughably in the wrong profession. Go find a career that actually pays something. Just don't get into any profession where you actually have to care about people, and you'll collect them big bucks just fine.)

Teachers don't teach because they want to get paid. They teach because they want to see their students grow from the point when they first enter the classroom, to the time when they are ready to move on to the next level. They teach because they want to make the world a better place. And they teach because those students are their world.

tl;dr -- You have a good point about the teacher shortages. As for teacher accountability checks, there are too many ineffective ones, and not enough effective ones. So they can actually become a detriment and a classroom distraction when not executed with care.

"There is a constant shortage of teachers, and so limiting employment to only those who are passionate about teaching would lead to an even deeper teaching crisis, as well as larger, more ineffective classrooms."

A fair point. Classrooms are already too large as it is... And as you said, there can be teachers who are motivated to doing a good job by money alone. None that I've ever met, but I'm sure they exist.

"The problem I think lies in a lack of accountability and making sure teachers are doing their job."

Oh, there are plenty of accountability checks. So many, in fact, that it's intrusive and disruptive to the classroom. I once had a case where I was forbidden from doing a free-writing exercise with my students for the first 5 minutes of class time because "those 5 minutes are the most important of the day, and you should spend it doing this instead." The Admins issued this decree without even bothering to listen to my reasoning behind the exercise: It got students excited for writing for the day, and gave them a chance to air out any grievances that would otherwise have distracted them throughout the class period. I had data to show that it worked. But no, we had to focus on inane, ineffective test prep instead.

Admins who have no idea what the classroom environment is really like on a daily basis, and who have no idea what really works for specific kids (because we're the ones there actually spending the time getting to know them), tell teachers what to do, and it kills motivation and innovation. So if there's anything, there are too many ineffective accountability checks, and not enough effective ones that actually look at teacher-gathered data to measure teacher innovations and student success.

tl;dr – The people surveilling you probably don't care about what you're doing in your private life. They're too busy looking for specific, generic things, and if they don't find it, they move on – they have a job to do, and they can't waste hours watching you sing (horribly) in the shower, or whatever.

[ I'm tagging this as commentary because it's just a hunch, and it makes me feel better about the whole thing. ]

The truth of the matter is, 90% of the time, the people monitoring us probably don't care what we're doing unless we're doing something wrong.

Let's face it – the average person's daily life is boring. It's so boring, in fact, that someone monitoring you will barely pay attention to anything you're saying or doing, because they're too busy looking for other things – police only look for criminal activity, and marketers only look at the products and services you use.

To these people, you are data. You are a statistic. The things you say and do, they've seen a million times – they've seen it so much that they auto tune it out, and just focus on doing their jobs. So, in truth, your private life remains blissfully unwatched.

At least, this is how I know my brain works. I imagine sitting there in front of a screen, viewing footage or data that all looks the same, day in and day out. I would be so bored by the end of hour one that you could be dancing naked in front of your TV, and I wouldn't even notice, because I'd have tuned out way before then – I'm just crunching numbers at that point, and looking at the clock feverishly in anticipation of my lunch break.

Then again, that kind of work isn't for me. Maybe the people doing surveillance find it all fascinating. I have a friend who absolutely loves pouring over endless statistics and data. I'd rather scrape off my skin with a cheese grater. But that's just me.

tl;dr – Watching someone else play video games is no different than watching someone else play a sport. In both cases, the viewer is engaging in a shared love for the game that they're watching – whether they're actually a fellow player or not.

I don't know how many times I've heard people say, "I don't see how you can sit there and watch someone play video games all day. Why don't you just play the game yourself?"

My immediate response is always, "I don't see how you can sit there and watch sports all day. Why don't you go out and play the game yourself?"

There are a multitude of reasons why we don't "just play the game ourselves." Maybe we share a genuine love and interest in the game and how other people play it. Maybe we look up to celebrity players who can do things normal players can only dream of doing. Or maybe we're just plain bad at the game, and we wanna live vicariously through people who actually halfway know what they're doing.

Note that I didn't distinguish what kind of game I was talking about in that last paragraph. Also note that I didn’t need to, because video games and sports are one and the same – they're games.

tl;dr – Both the Imperials and the Stormcloaks are flawed, but at least the Imperials' goals are for the betterment of Skyrim, unlike the Stormcloaks who are only out for themselves.

I'll be upfront – on my very first playthrough, I sided with the Stormcloaks, because the Imperials had just tried to decapitate me, and it looked like they were persecuting Ulfric and his followers for daring to rise up against oppression. The game sets you up to be sympathetic towards the Stormcloaks, because it seems like they’ve been betrayed by the people who were supposed to protect them. You feel betrayed, because the Imperials have your head on the chopping block next to Ulfric’s, simply because you were at the wrong place at the wrong time. The Imperials seem like downright villains.

But the Stormcloaks are not all they appear to be, either. Underneath their banner of “justice” lies an inherent racism and hypocrisy that they sweep under the rug with their freedom calls. When they proclaim that “Skyrim is for the Nords,” they mean only the Nords. Nowhere is this more obvious than in Windhelm: The Nords force the Dark Elves to live in slums, and forbid Argonians and Khajiit from even entering their walls. They ran the Reachmen from their ancestral home, and forbid them from worshiping their own gods (sound familiar? Maybe the Thalmor invasion is poetic justice).

The Imperials bent their knees to the whims of the Thalmor, true. But they did it for the good of Skyrim, knowing that if they only bided their time, the day would come when they could rise up and drive the Thalmor out for good. The Stormcloaks can’t see the forest for the trees – all they see is the vision of a pure, Nordic Skyrim, and they don’t seem to realize that by defeating the Imperials, they’ll be weakening Skyrim’s defenses – making it impossible to fight off the Thalmor.

Are the Imperials without fault? Hardly. But at least their intentions are noble, and they can see the bigger picture. They may seem like a thorn in the side, but they are necessary for the survival of Skyrim and its people – all of its people.

I did a little digging, and according to [this thread on r/teslore] (https://www.reddit.com/r/teslore/comments/90g6sc/does_ulfric_work_for_the_thalmor/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share), the documents you mentioned do seem to imply that Ulfric worked with the Thalmor at one point. However, it's speculated that it was during a time in which he was much younger and easier to manipulate.

Not that he isn't still easy to manipulate. He turned against the Thalmor, but he's still their unwitting pawn, because he's playing right into their hands by splitting Skyrim apart with his inane civil war. In trying to defy them, he's ultimately giving them exactly what they need to completely take control.

A very fair point. However, it all boils down to choosing the lesser of two evils. The Imperials might be freedom-suppressing, capitalist invaders, but at least they aren't racist hypocrites like the Stormcloaks who are doing the exact same thing under the guise of freedom.

The Stormcloaks are underhanded about their dirty deeds. The Imperials, at least, are upfront about it -- and, like I said, their goal is to eventually find a way to get out from under the Thalmors' thumb, which will be good for everyone.

If the Stormcloaks get their way, Skyrim will be left pretty much defenseless without the Imperials, who are the only thing standing between Skyrim and the Thalmor at this point. Ulfric and his troops alone are not enough to fight off the Thalmor. If Ulfric wins, then it's basically a Thalmor victory, because they will swoop right in and wipe them out. Skyrim needs to unite with the Imperials, defeat the Thalmor, then work out a treaty between Skyrim and Cyrodiil.

I was just about to make this point, but you beat me to it! So many unhealthy breakfast foods out there... I'd rather just have a sandwich, personally (and, I usually do, if I eat breakfast at all).

tl;dr – Disney should have adjusted the "Lion King" remake's script to account for the characters and story in "The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride," because fans want a proper sequel.

The "Lion King" remake is getting a prequel based on Mufasa's story, and while fans are excited, they are also anticipating a remake of "The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride," which starred Simba's daughter, Kiara. But if we do get our TLK 2 remake, it's going to face the same criticism as the original animated version did:

A major plot hole.

Where did Zira and the Outsiders come from? Simba says they were banished from the Pride Lands for being loyal to Scar, but they weren't present at all in TLK.

The fans want a sequel remake, but Disney is going to have to address this plot hole one way or another if they plan on giving it to us. The best way would have just been to adjust the TLK remake's story from the start – it really wouldn't have taken much. Just have Zira and a few lionesses there who actually like Scar. That's it. But now, they're going to have to significantly alter TLK 2's story to account for why Zira wasn't in TLK – which will ruin the integrity of TLK 2's beautiful story.

Obviously, the plot hole wasn't addressed in the original TLK because Disney didn't have a sequel planned at that time – heck, they didn't even think the movie was going to be a success. But with the remake, Disney has the material to accommodate for TLK 2's story – they just didn't use it.

Why, Disney? Are you ashamed of TLK 2 because it was a direct-to-video sequel? Plot hole aside, it was great – the characters are interesting and lovable, and the story is romantic and action-packed. Were you afraid that the TLK remake would face box office failure if you changed the script to include Zira? Forget money for once, and just focus on the art of storytelling.

The fans want a proper remake of TLK 2. Disney let us down by not accounting for that when they scripted the TLK remake.

tl;dr -- There's a lot of room to misinterpret what people mean when they "like" or "dislike" something. In fact, it would be better to just use universally-understood emojis as "reactions" to posts than either "like" or "dislike" buttons.

"Sometimes people post on Facebook the passing of a relative. While it can be difficult to imagine anyone clicking 'dislike' on a post that laments the loss of a relative, adding a 'dislike' button would allow the opportunity for it."

To be fair, there's a lot of room for misinterpretation there. I, for one, am hesitant to EVER "like" a post about someone's relative passing away, because it seems insensitive -- it's almost like saying, "I like that this happened." Similarly, I can see how someone who isn't well-versed in internet "like/dislike" culture might just click that "dislike" button with the innocent intention of saying "I dislike that this happened."

As for myself, I wouldn't click either button, and would just make a comment with my condolences instead -- but for people with little time to actually comment, those two buttons would be a go-to way of showing support -- and to be quite frank, neither are appropriate to use for this kind of post.

Tbh? Get rid of "like" and "dislike" entirely, and just use "reactions" or emoji instead. Much more appropriate, universal (everyone pretty much interprets facial expressions the same way), and people-friendly.

"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."

Excellent point. This is a problem that has been stewing in our country for long enough, and it needs to be eradicated, and swiftly. If the riot on Jan. 6th wasn't evidence enough that things have escalated to dangerous levels, then I don't know what is.

tl;dr -- It matters because many companies which claim to support a cause often do nothing to actually promote social change, and in some cases they even do more harm than good.

Except that it does matter. Companies which purport to support a cause, such as Black Lives Matter, in order to boost their image (and thus, their sales), aren't always supporting the causes they claim to. They wave the banner and shout "YEAH, YOU GO, TEAM!", but do nothing to promote actual social change:

"In the case of corporate support for Black Lives Matter, Miller says that while many businesses have been quick to adopt the movement's hashtag, they don’t appear to show the same enthusiasm in their boardrooms: as of 2020, only four out of America's 500 biggest companies had a black chief executive."

Intention matters. Do these companies intend to boost their image by adopting the BLM hashtag? Yep. Do they intend to actually step it up and make changes within their own infrastructure to open up more opportunities for black people in their communities? Nope.

And it goes even deeper than simple inaction. Some companies claim to do good, but ultimately end up doing more harm. Case in point: TOMS Shoes started out as a charity, but quickly grew into a business. For every pair of shoes that consumers buy, TOMS will donate a pair to a child in need from another country. The problem with TOMS is that they pander to the consumer's desire to "do a good deed," and have little regard for the actual needs of the country's children. Not only do they ignore basic needs like food, water, and money, but they actively destroy foreign local economies:

"These countries have markets in which shoes are being produced locally. TOMS can hurt the people and businesses that are producing these shoes and ruin the economic structure of the country. If TOMS gives away free shoes, local shoemakers have no market to sell to and are forced out of business."

Intention matters. TOMS started out with good intentions, but their intentions became skewed when they began focusing more on marketing than the people they donate their shoes to. TOMS is now just brand promotion, and nothing more.

It's like my dad once told me, "If nothing else exists out there, then that's a lot of wasted space."

The only reason us Earthlings exist at all is the accident of evolution (and also maybe divine intervention -- I do believe the two can coexist). There's no reason to think that this "accident" couldn't happen elsewhere. If Earthlings are the product of either random chance, or a divine power's whims, who's to say we're the only products?

Dogs eat their own poop and then lick you.

I rest my case.

Dude, my cats won't let me sit down five minutes before climbing into my lap and demanding cuddles and petting. They also engage with me by wrestling with my arm, playing fetch (yes, one of my younger cats actually does this!), and playing chase around the house. I love it when my boy attacks my ankles and then runs, daring me to come get revenge.

It depends on an individual cat's personality. But it also depends on their human understanding cat language and how to get these majestic, proud, stand-offish creatures to engage.

Dogs love anyone without reason. But you have to earn a cat's love, and damn it, I respect that.

Not if you keep your cat strictly indoors, which is safer for them anyway. And if a mouse happens to get in your house, better to let the cat kill it before it spreads its little disease-pellets everywhere. There's a very beneficial aspect to having an apex predator in your home.

Also, dogs have been known to do the same thing. I had a dog once that periodically brought me dead rabbits... and always had the head partially chewed off.

And, good point about the nutrient thing.

Microsoft became evil the moment it dropped DOS support. Do you know how hard it is to set up The Oregon Trail in DOSBox?

... Well, it isn't that hard. But it is an unnecessarily tedious extra 10 or so steps.

And let's not forget the legendary Windows ME fiasco. That operating system was clearly the spawn of Satan.

... But seriously, nerd-speak aside, I totally agree with you. You can't judge the entire company by the actions of a handful of nitwits. But I guess it's just easier to assign blame to a single "entity" (i.e. Microsoft as a whole) than it is to figure out who those specific nitwits are and admonish them.

Bethesda, though. Thoroughly evil.

The cake is a lie.

But is chocolate truly the opposite of vanilla?

Let's take a moment to define vanilla:

"A commercially important extract of the vanilla bean that is used especially as a flavoring"

Now let's define chocolate:

"A food prepared from ground roasted cacao beans."

Notice that both foods are extracted from beans. If both are extracted from beans, then they are of a similar nature and cannot be opposites.

To further drive this point home, we have this blurb from Word Hippo which describes what might be defined as antonyms of the word "chocolate":

"The word chocolate typically refers to a sweet confection made from ground and roasted cacao seeds.

There are no categorical antonyms for this word.

However, one could loosely use unrelated, and especially savory, foodstuffs as antonyms, e.g., omelet, fries, chicken, etc."

Note that at no point does it describe vanilla -- which also belongs to the "sweet" category of flavor sensations -- as a potential opposite.

Therefore, if Cake(portal) = chocolate = lie, then it also stands to reason that Cake(minecraft) = vanilla = lie.

The bottom line is, all desert cakes belong to the "sweet" flavor category, and cannot be opposites of one another. So, no matter how you slice it, the cake will always be a lie.

I don't know who originally made this post because I found it empty, but I'm going to chime in.

I believe in a woman's right to do ANYTHING she wants with her life, including being a mother and having a career. Same thing with being a father and having a career.

But once you bring a child into this world, that child should be every parents' number one priority, I don't care if you're the mom or the dad.

There are too many neglected kids in this world who grow up without either of their parents around. Even in a financially-stable home with the best caretaker money can buy, they tend to grow up resentful, rebellious, and/or emotionally bereft. They can have trouble developing close relationships of their own, and then -- heaven forbid -- when they become parents themselves, the cycle only continues.

I'm not saying this is 100% always the case, and no, I don't have statistics or research to back it up. It's just experience and observation that has taught me these things, as I've seen too many neglegted children end up with [emotional disorders] (https://www.jys.org/what-causes-emotional-behavior-disorder/) because their parents simply weren't there.

To be completely honest, I'm in the camp that one parent should be working, and the other should be at home -- at least during the hours their kids are out of school. I don't care which gender does what. But that child needs and deserves the constant, loving, teaching, and disciplinary presence of at least one of their parents.

But I also realize that, in today's economy, that's not always realistic. Sometimes, both parents have to work. Since this is a reality in today's world, maybe we ought to stop looking at which parent should do what, and start looking towards reforms which will force employers to give paid time off as needed for parents to go be parents. Our entire system is rigged so that our jobs/careers have to come first, or we face the threat of losing them. Things need to change so that parents can take care of their families without the fear of losing their jobs.

So actually, scratch what I said earlier about one parent working and the other staying home. Both need to be in their childrens' lives, and if they both want/need a career as well, they should both have the opportunity to work without the fear of losing their jobs if they need to stay home for a kid with the sniffles.

So the true statement ought to be: Parents may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.

Edit: I didn't consider single parents, but the same goes for them -- they shouldn't have to work themselves to the bone and never get any time with their kids, just so they can pay the bills.

The bottom line is, we need to be a country that takes care of its children first, and everything else second.

Although I disagree from a personal standpoint, I have to say that you make some very valid points:

"In the summer after my A-level exams I found myself working a 9-5 office job in Central London, I loved it. However, one thing I could not stand was the radio playing constantly throughout the day. Since then, I have not once found myself wanting to listen to music."

As someone with ADHD, I can understand how constant noise can ruin an otherwise pleasant experience. What one considers to be noise is irrelevant -- the fact of the matter is, if it's getting on your nerves, then you have a legitimate reason to feel frustrated and even offended by it. Even I get put-out when music is constantly blaring in my ear at the wrong moment -- and I thrive on music.

"When I do try and listen to music, it quite literally goes in one ear and out the other, whereas I find myself much more concentrated when listening to something with meaning, of which I can relate to and/or engage with."

What one finds meaning in is entirely subjective. Even though most people find some measure of meaning in music, that doesn't mean that everyone finds meaning in it. Therefore, it is completely reasonable that you should choose to spend your time on activities that you do find meaningful -- otherwise it's wasted time, and time is something that you can never get back.

It's exactly as they say: Art is in the eye of the beholder -- and if it offends your senses, you should promptly disengage and go behold something that actually makes you happy.

I do happen to disagree, but I say "good point" because ultimately, taste is all up to personal preferences -- and your case for your preference is well-made.

On that note, have you tried adding mayo on both slices of bread? My dad does this (he does weird things with food), and it is surprisingly good. Seems to keep the cheese from becoming rubbery, too. Or maybe my dad is just good at making them, idk.

To be honest, I was really worried that I would not be able to understand this, because economics is not my area of expertise. But you explained it and argued it in such a clear way so that I could easily follow along -- thank you!

And, I agree -- I've witnessed many problems as a result of businesses feeling the pressure to bend to shareholders' will, at the expense of their employees. Namely, how employees at Wal-Mart kept getting their hours cut so that the big guys could save on paying them to meet their shareholders' expectations of a projected profit for that year (as I was told / as I understand it -- it was also several years ago). So shareholder capitalism definitely was not conducive to ensuring the maximum benefit of every stakeholder, as the employees were left in the dirt, with many unable to even sustain the cost of living. Some families even struggled to afford food to eat, but also didn't qualify for government aid because they "made too much money" -_-'

... Yeah, definitely down with the shareholders.

"*I'm not sure how to label President Trump in past or present tense at this point, given he is still currently holding office as of this writing but is due to leave within a week."

I think it's safe to still address him as President Trump. I saw something on TV the other day (can't remember what), where they called in Obama for an interview, and they introduced him as President Obama despite him having been out of office for this long.

"A person is paid a salary to simply make an educated decision to tell readers if they should go see one movie over the other? That's a job?"

It is a funny thing, isn't it? And critics' opinions aren't always right. They do offer a valuable insight from the POV of filmmaking techniques which average moviegoers aren't familiar with, though. And they're not the only profession to get paid for expressing their opinions -- magazines, newspapers, websites, etc. feature opinion pieces all the time, and I would assume that their authors get paid, at least for the big name media companies. Some people even get paid to troll social media sites like Twitter and Facebook -- or so I've been told. I can't actually verify that. But I wouldn't doubt it.

"Culture Criticism is vital for journalism because it reports how artists are expressing their views of the current situation of the world they inhabit, and can be expressed by their individual viewpoints."

Excellent point. I don't think I even need to say anything else. What you said stands for itself.

Edit: A point I just thought of -- There's also an important place for more lighthearted pieces of Culture Criticism, because in the face of such trying times, sometimes people need a distraction, if only for the sake of their mental health. Dwelling on real-world issues 24/7 can only cause stress, mental fatigue (if not physical in some cases), anxiety, and depression. People being in isolation only exacerbates these problems. So, without -- say -- an article analyzing where Coco succeeds and fails at representing Mexican culture to lighten the mood and uplift the spirits, while also serving an important function as Culture Criticism, people wouldn't have any outlets in journalistic media in which to escape the world's current problems. So, we need lighthearted Culture Criticism pieces to keep us mentally sane and reasonably happy.

As somewhat of an artist myself, I actually have to disagree.

"(Symbolism is) a piece of information obscured by the method of its expression, indirect and coded. It seems as though the creator has challenged their audience to decrypt something which is fundamentally unknowable"

Not always true. Some symbols are well-known and universal, an example being a heart representing love, a cross representing Christianity, a floppy disk representing the "save" function in an app or program, etc. Audiences usually don't have to think too hard to decrypt these.

Now, admittedly, high art is less likely to use such plebeian symbols -- but, it isn't out of the ordinary for even more complex / unknown symbolism to be figured out by the audience. I was a student teacher for a while, and I showed my 9th grade students a music video (a form of both auditory and visual art), and had them analyze the images the director used to accompany the lyrics. Prior to the video, I had them analyze the lyrics by themselves. Then I had them compare their analysis of the lyrics with and without the video, and see if the video's images changed their interpretation of the lyrics. Many of them came up with very accurate interpretations of the art. So it isn't an absolute given that symbolism is so complex that audiences can't decrypt their meaning.

Now, on to your main point:

"Ultimately, in sharing art of any shape, symbolism cannot be escaped: symbolism is inherent in the desire to do so."

Not all art is symbolic. I draw plenty of sketches just to unwind, flex the drawing muscles, practice, or even just to brain-spew all over the page. I don't attach a meaning or symbolism to such drawings -- and yet, they are still technically art, just at the developmental stage. Whether or not I advance them beyond that stage is irrelevant.

Likewise, while some commercial art can be complex and symbolic, other commercial art is built upon demographics, psychology, and statistics on what sells and what doesn't. For example, McDonald's doesn't predominantly use the colors red and yellow in their advertising because there is a symbolic meaning behind the colors -- they use them because [psychological studies proved that those colors elicit more of a hunger response than any other color] (https://www.karenhaller.co.uk/blog/branding-why-red-yellow-is-used-by-the-fast-food-industry/). In other words, they chose these colors to manipulate the senses and attract more customers. There is intention behind their choice, but not symbolic intent.

So no, not all art is symbolic. It can function in a number of ways outside of symbolism, or can even lack a function at all.

As a fanfiction writer, I have to address a few crucial points in your argument;

"By making fanfiction part of the canon of the story, it takes away from what the author originally intended."

Only kids and the pretentious write fanfiction with the delusion that it will ever be made canon. Contrary to popular belief, altering the source material is not the point of writing fanfiction. Fans enjoy exploring the world of their favorite stories, and imagining what things would be like in X scenario, or if X happened instead of X, or what if the story continued, what if the characters changed, what if you took Star Wars characters and put them into The Oregon Trail, etc. Literally no one who takes fanfiction writing seriously ever claims to be writing canon material. It's basically the adult's version of "playing pretend."

"I think that authors and artists that do fanfiction have a right to publish their work, with the original author's permission."

A fair concept, but an ultimately unrealistic one. For example, I highly doubt that if I contacted Rob Minkoff and Roger Allers to get permission to publish a Lion King fanfic, that I would get a response. Chances are, they're too busy, too famous, or just plain don't care.

Nevertheless, this is why seasoned and responsible fanfiction writers preface their work with a disclaimer acknowledging who the actual copyright holder is, and distinguishing what the fanfic author owns (i.e. original characters, ideas, etc.), and what the official source author owns (i.e. everything else).

"But I don't believe other people can make money off of someone else's idea, without their explicit permission."

Virtually no self-respecting fanfic writer attemps to make money with their fanfics. What you're probably thinking of are Etsy artists who make unofficial fanart buttons, stickers, art prints, 3D printed figures, etc. and sell them. Which, I believe (I'll look this up later to confirm) is legally considered a transformative work (i.e. significantly altered to the point of being derivative of, not copying the source material), and therefore considered fair use. Technically, fanfics fall under the same category -- but again, very few fanfic authors try to sell their work. Most publish to free sites like [Fanfiction.net] (https://www.fanfiction.net/) or [AO3] (https://archiveofourown.org/).

I also want to point out that one reason fanfic authors don't try to sell their work is because they want as many readers as possible -- they don't want to exclude anyone who can't pay. That's because we want to share in a communal love for our favorite fandoms, exchange ideas, gush about our favorite characters, and constructively critique others' work -- because, 99% of the time, people write fanfics to practice and improve their writing skills in a safe environment where they can get constructive critique without being blasted by inane non-writers in book reviews.

Your argument is based on the misguided notion that fanfic authors are out to profit off of someone else's hard work, when the truth of the matter is that all we wanna do is share our love of our favorite fandoms with other fans. We support our favorite fandom creators by buying and collecting official merch, and we even help each other spot bootlegs so we can avoid and even report them.

And, yes, there is a difference between a bootleg and the fanart you see for sale on Etsy. Bootleggers try to con people into believing they're buying the real deal, whereas fanart artists explicitly state that their art is derivative and not official merch. Some even put this disclaimer right on the package.

Anyway. The point is, fanfiction writing is an expression of love for our favorite media, not some slimy get-rich-quick scheme where we hide out in a dark basement and produce illegal contraband in attempt to cash in on popular media. You wanna discredit someone, go seek out the bootleggers on eBay, sketchy off-brand sites, and in flea markets (of course, you can also find legitimate fanart creators on these platforms, too -- so really, don't go raising up the pitchfork unless you know enough about the official merch to be able to spot the difference).

Mind-blowing, and painfully true. Great point!

Bear with me, because I'm going to try to respond to this without being overly lewd. Prepare to censor me if needed -- especially since I happen to have female nipples.

"Miley Cyrus once noted the irony of the controversy surrounding female nipples, explaining that most of society is comfortable with the rest of the breast area (side boob, underboob, cleavage), which is the part exclusive to women, but the nipple, which both men and women have, is largely prohibited from being displayed.

Welcome to the whimsical world of Misogynistic Logic :D

"But when comparing the two, there is nothing inherently more sexual about a females chest than that of a mans (in fact, it serves more of a nonsexual purpose than a mans through breastfeeding, which is also banned in many states)"

Depends on a person's kink. Some (probably most) people get off on playing with them. Still others (probably only a niche group, though I have been proven wrong before...) have a fetish for the breastfeeding thing. So from a sexual preference standpoint, it pretty much is universally agreed that females have way more sexually-pleasing nipples than males.

Not as many people who are into male nipples, because -- let's face it -- they're just not very interesting. They don't have a proper function, they don't really stand out, and it's only due to embryonic laziness that men even have nipples at all. So if anything, male nipples ought to be censored for how utterly pointless and boring they are.

But getting back to my point about how female nipples are, indeed, more sexual than men's: Just because this is true, doesn't mean that female nipples ought to be censored. If it did, then there ought to be a laundry list of censorable body parts, because people sexualize anything from toes to earlobes, and everything in between. Some people even get off on adding extra body parts -- even nonhuman ones (I would have inserted a link to an example here, but I just tried to Google a SFW example, and... well, there just isn't one).

So, logically, since we can't feasibly censor the entire human body, we ought to just stop being whiny baby puritans, and let the nipple slip already.

( . ) ( . )

Crap, now I'm going to get banned. Thanks, Turi.

"The animal has no comprehension of a tree. Since the animal has no concept of a tree, the sound of a tree falling is registered to the animal as just a sound. Does it think about what it heard? Chances are the animal would not."

There's no way of knowing for certain that an animal can't comprehend a tree, and in fact, I would argue that it makes more sense for an animal to comprehend a tree. After all, the tree is a part of the animal's natural environment. It stands to reason that they would comprehend it, at the very least, as "home" or "landmark" or "obstacle" -- all three of which are very plausible realities of what one can perceive a tree to be.

There's also no way of knowing whether or not an animal thinks about the sounds it hears -- but as an animal lover who has studied many species, and observed her own cats' behaviors very closely, I can confidently hypothesize that animals do, in fact, think very carefully about the sounds that they hear. Their very survival depends on them being able to identify threats fast enough to escape them -- and sounds are one such early indicator of a threat.

For example, when one of my cats hears the sound of a dog barking outside, they stop and listen -- you can tell because they freeze up, and their ears are working every which way in order to pinpoint the sound. They are very obviously processing the sound and assessing whether or not it's a threat. If the sound gets too close to the window, they bolt -- thus acting on their reasoning (a.k.a. thought process) that the sound which they identify as "big, slobbering, dangerous animal" is getting too close for comfort.

That being said -- and I promise that this is all leading up to the "tree falling in the forest" debate -- I also find this entire argument to be very human-centric...

"... reality itself is dependent on the presence of humans to perceive that which is right in front of us, whether it's a physical object to be touched or a sound to be heard."

Contrary to popular belief, the world -- in fact -- does not revolve around humans. We are not the space particles that collided and stuck together to form the core of the planet, nor are we the single-celled organisms from which all life was born. Gravity does not pull in our direction, and we are too tiny -- a.k.a. insignificant -- for the world to revolve around us.

Reality especially doesn't revolve around humans. Reality, by its very definition, is base existence: "something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily". Note in particular how the Merriam-Webster definition specifies that reality is neither derivative -- aka the product of -- or dependent on anything. Humans didn't create reality -- reality was a higher power eons before humankind was even a speck in the sea. And reality has never been dependent on humans or anything else -- reality defines that which is, was, and will be. In fact, we depend on reality in order to perceive that which is right in front of us. If reality didn't ground us, we wouldn't have a clue as to what's going on.

Now, finally, we get to the "tree" debate: Because reality exists outside of the almighty human's immediate orbit, it stands to reason that events occur where no human is present. We can reasonably extend this to animals, which are capable of perceiving sounds and reacting to them. With that clarified, we can now ask: If no human or animal is around to hear the tree fall, then does it make a sound?

Merriam-Webster defines sound as "mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (such as air) and is the objective cause of hearing". Note that the definition cites sound as the cause of hearing, not the other way around. Meaning that sound exists outside of hearing -- outside of cognitive perception. It is a physical phenomenon which occurs whether or not anyone is around to hear it. A simpler definition via Googling "define sound" makes this much clearer: "vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear." Sound wave vibrations are a physical process that happen outside of the ear -- in other words, they don't need the ear in order to happen. If no ears are around to receive the sound waves, then they simply keep sailing along in the air until they fade away.

Any argument which claims that a falling tree doesn't make sound unless someone is around to hear it is rooted in the notion that sound is an abstraction -- a concept that only exists in the mind. But sound is scientifically proven to be a physical process which occurs separate from a human or animal's sensory functions. Hearing sound, on the other hand, is a psychological process in which our brains react to the physical contact a sound wave makes with our ears -- very similar to how our brains psychologically react when something touches our skin. Last time I checked, touch -- too -- was a physical thing.

So the tree definitely produces sound waves when it falls. Whether or not anyone is around to hear the sound is irrelevant. The sound was created. The sound exists. The sound lives on for a little while, then fades back out of existence. Maybe, because no one heard it, its existence was meaningless. But it did, nevertheless, exist.

"Philosophically, a hotdog is a sandwich. It has two slices of bread around a piece of meat."

A hot dog bun is most definitely not two slices of bread -- it is one singular mini loaf which has been sliced nearly in half, but not completely severed. The resulting bun is still intact enough to be considered one solid piece.

This, therfore, changes the course of the argument considerably. If one's definition of a sandwich hinges on the fact that it must consist of two separate slices of bread around a piece of meat, then a hotdog obviously does not qualify. However, if the only condition that needs to be met is that there must be meat encased in bread, then the scope of qualifying dishes expands considerably. So, this specification needs to be clarified.

The presupposition that meat is the only possible sandwich filling is another matter entirely.

"you wouldn't grate some Parmesan onto your strawberry"

... I totally make snack trays where I cut up fruits, veggies, deli meats, and, cheeses... and I love taking a strawberry and a bit of sharp cheddar and putting them together into one bite, because I love the combination of flavors.

... I also like pineapple on pizza.

I strongly agreed before I even read the argument, despite not being a photographer or into photography at all.

What I am, however, is an absolute nerd over old technology. It fascinates me to no end to play with an old piece of tech -- to use it like people would have used it back in the day, to imagine how they must have felt about it when it first came out, and to even take it apart and examine what makes it work. An old 35mm film camera would be no exception -- I've just yet to get my hands on one.

I'm also partial to physical media because of the more tangible, interactive feel of using something like a film camera, or a vinyl record player, or an actual paper book. Their digital versions are more convenient, true -- but that also makes the user experience feel hollow, because when you can simply "one and done" things in under a second by tapping on a screen, it loses the feeling of effort behind setting up your camera, or positioning the needle on a vinyl record, or flipping through the pages in a book. It's missing those satisfying, kinesthetic interactions that we lack so hard these days, that we had to invent fidget toys to take their place.

Now, after reading your argument: I 100% agree. It all goes back to that need for effort -- the process of adjusting your camera settings, focusing the lens, winding the film, lining up your shot, shooting it, anxiously awaiting its development, and finally discovering how it all turned out... you had to savor every moment, and the memories you successfully captured on film became precious to you, because it was so hard to capture that perfect shot -- and like you said, you only had a limited amount of shots in which to do it. So when you turned out a failed image, it burned, and it taught you to be more careful, because film rolls were too expensive to keep wasting shots like that.

Digital cameras remove that experience entirely. So, naturally, most people don't really think that much about taking a picture. They pull up the app, snap a series of shots because they know they'll get at least one that's halfway usable, they'll maybe glance at the pic before they put the phone away (usually not), and then they go on about their day, never thinking about it again. It's an entirely thoughtless process for most people, because the phone does 99% of the work upfront -- it comes pre-programmed with optimal settings on default, it autofocuses the lens, it adjusts the lighting, and it displays a live preview of the shot so the user can instantly adjust and retake indefinitely if needed. The risk-and-reward aspect of taking a picture is entirely gone -- and the sad part is, most people will never be aware of what they're missing out on.

People also take for granted that they have the tools and ability to take a picture in the first place, because back in the day, you had to buy a dedicated, stand-alone device that only took pictures -- there was no all-in-one miracle device that made calls, gave you instant access to a hundred-thousand encyclopedias worth of information, and took pictures, too. And cameras were expensive, so most people I knew didn't even have one. But now, cameras come standard on most smart devices, and they're so common that they're almost an afterthought which manufacturers include just because people expect to have them as a basic feature.

So yeah, you make a great case for your argument, and even though I'm not into photography, I can totally see how someone could get addicted to snapping pics with an old 35mm (or even a new one!? I just looked up 35mm cameras on Google, and apparently [they still make these in 2021] (https://www.photoworkout.com/best-film-cameras/)!?) Great argument!

Well said -- and very, very true.

Time can entirely change one's heart, too. Losing a loved one, experiencing betrayal, undergoing trama, failing in one's most precious goals... It can really take a toll on one's perception of life, other people, society, or even the world. The person's entire outlook may change, or even their very personality. It may result in the loss of innocence for young kids -- where they once regarded the world with curiosity and wonder, they now observe it with trepidation and scorn.

And sometimes, people don't even want to heal. They either feel like they don't deserve it -- that this is somehow a divine or karmic punishment -- or they feel guilty for moving on, like they're leaving behind the person they've lost, or abandoning other people who are also suffering. Still others believe that this must be their place in life -- that they must suffer so other people don't have to -- so they hide their pain and never allow their wounds to heal.

Or -- on the more cynical side -- some people even hold onto grief because it makes them feel entitled to display negative emotions, or to appear "victimized" in some way. They do this to either get attention, to gain sympathy and gifts / money / privileges, or simply to make themselves feel better. But even in this case, at the heart of it, the person is acting out because they are suffering -- that wound won't heal because they won't stop picking at it, and it frustrates them that they still feel pain from the wound, but they still keep perpetuating it anyway, looping themselves into a cycle of pain and negative behavior.

But yeah, excellent points you've made, especially about coping not being the same as healing. Coping with a wound means that it's a constant in one's life -- even if the person can "forget" about it for a little while, it will always be there in the subconscious, surfacing on occasion to remind the person that they're still in pain, and then retreating to await another opportune moment when it can again whisper words of melancholy, hopelessness, and / or fear. The person has to learn how to deal with this wound whenever it flares back up, and either distract themself from it, or soothe it back into dormancy.

On a (somewhat) lighter note: I was attracted to this Opinion piece because of its title, which immediately reminded me of a line from one of my favorite Nightwish songs, For the Heart I Once Had, which is actually very appropriate to this topic: It's about a person who experiences repeated heartbreak, and it eventually takes from them their heart and innocence. The lyrics also heavily imply a loss of innocence due to coming into adulthood, and learning that the world is not as full of wonder as when they were a child. This leaves the person scarred and constantly looking back to a time in which their heart was as light as snow. Anyway, the line in question is: "Time will not heal a Dead Boy's scars / time will kill." Since I'm entirely shameless in my desire to share my favorite songs, [here's a link to the song on YouTube] (https://youtu.be/1bZN_4NkbUo). (Btw if this this isn't allowed, I'll promptly edit and remove the link).

Fair enough. There's also the argument that "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger."

Tbh, I don't think there's a definitive, black-or-white answer as to whether or not time heals all wounds. I feel like it's completely situational and dependent on the person -- where one person might be able to handle suffering better, another might find it too overwhelming to be able to move on.

There's also the presence (or absence) of mental disorders to consider, which may disrupt the normal grieving process and cause the affected person to get trapped in or fixate on the "anger" or "depression" stages. A person's [personality type] (https://www.16personalities.com/personality-types) also plays a vital role in determining their level of fortitude and perseverence. Having or lacking a strong support network also makes a difference -- and in order for time to heal, their support network needs to be patient, and stick with them the whole way through. Having people give up on you halfway in only cuts the wound deeper.

So, yeah. Perhaps the best way to look at it is to understand that everyone is different, and what one person can handle, another person may be incapable of handling.

On a side note, I get very frustrated when someone says "well, I was able to do X just fine, so you have no excuse to not be able to do it." It's one of the most ignorant and insensitive things I've ever heard. Please, for the love of (insert object of worship here), do not ever say anything like this to anyone, especially not to someone who is experiencing grief or trauma. It sets up unrealistic expectations for someone to cope and heal in exactly the same way that you do, when more likely than not, their situation is different than yours -- which means they face disadvantages that you might not even have any concept of. What's worse is that it causes the other person to beat themself up needlessly for not being able to handle things the same way as you do. It isn't fair to force a fish to climb a tree -- it just simply can't be done, and all it does is hurts the fish's self-esteem.

... Anyway, yeah. After thinking about it, I'd actually change my vote to "Neutral" because it's not a simple black-or-white answer. Depending on who you are, either one could be right.

"Unhinged." The guy's downright maniacal.

Forget impeachment -- they ought to have him committed.

Your points are well-made. It's astounding that the powers that be continue to humor this man's presence in office. He clearly needs psychiatric intervention.

"Furthermore, social media companies are a privately-owned business and First Amendment rights to free speech extend only on public property. Therefore, the right to free speech falls solely on social media, not the federal government."

Well said. Social media companies have every right to set down a code of conduct which their users must adhere to, or face censorship / account suspension / permanent bans -- it's the same as a homeowner setting the rules for people coming into their home: "Take off your shoes at the door / no smoking / no political talk / etc." If a guest breaks any of those rules, the homeowner has every right to correct their behavior, or kick them out.

Social media users are being allowed to use a service owned and provided by the social media company, just like a guest being allowed entry into a person's home. Users' rights are lined out for them when they sign up to the platform -- and their rights do not extend beyond those specified, even if they are a person of high social standing. So If a user breaks a rule, they ought to expect to be censored or removed from the service. They can whine about "free speech" all they want -- but the law will ultimately back the social media company's decision.

Long story short, social media platforms have the right and freedom to set and enforce any rules that they please (as long as they're not breaking the law or causing harm to others). So they should utilize that authority, look after their user base, and ban anyone for misconduct that disrupts the peace and causes distress.

"Social media companies have a moral obligation to maintain civility on their platforms even if users inciting violence and touting harmful conspiracy theories are world leaders looking for attention."

I agree. It's the same concept as the responsibility a teacher has to their students. The teacher is not only charged with overseeing the education of these kids, but is also morally bound to monitoring their behavior, and quickly extinguishing any signs of bullying or aggression before it escalates into violence. If the teacher allows, say, the superintendent's kid to verbally abuse others, then the teacher is just as responsible for any resulting violent outburst as the offending kids are.

Sadly, I know all too many teachers who are afraid of ruffling the feathers of parents, lest the teacher lose their job. And it's a rational fear, because it happens all the time -- and often unfairly. Similarly, I think the reason that Twitter sat on the decision to ban Trump for so long was because they were afraid of what repercussions they could face. Considering the outrageous stunts that Trump has pulled, one can't really blame them for being afraid.

So, I applaud them for finally growing a backbone and standing up to the Supreme Schoolyard Bully. It's a move they should have made long ago -- maybe it wouldn't have prevented the riot, but it would have given Trump one less platform on which to spread his mad ramblings.

"How then, can we still question if God or a higher power (if you’re from a different culture or belief) really exists? If man does all of these things, does it not stand to reason that there has to be a higher power?"

To be fair, humans do a lot of things that seem to lack a solid, logical reasoning behind them. Take, for example, a person who is diagnosed with clinical OCD: This particular individual has a compulsive need to count the letters in every sentence they read. There is no reason they need to repeatedly perform this action, and there is no consequence for not doing it. But this person can't rest until the task is complete -- all they know is that it has to be done, and that there is some mysterious driving force compelling them to do it.

Let's go back, then, to religious practices and rituals: Humans don't have a logical reason behind performing these tasks, other than feeling compelled to do them by, or in honor of, a higher power. So this, in itself, does not prove that God exists -- it only proves that these people are experiencing a compulsion to perform certain tasks. More often than not, their behavior is the result of a subconscious fear of what will happen if they don't perform these tasks -- "If I don't sacrifice this lamb to God, I will not go to Heaven, and will be cast into the fires of Hell to suffer for all eternity."

Or, to give the benefit of the doubt, I do believe that there are many religious folk who don't operate on fear -- they earnestly feel a connection to what they perceive and trust is a higher power, and see that higher power as a positive presence in their lives. And -- if you free yourself from the notion that things have to be tangible to be real -- it does seem to make reasonable sense: "If God didn't exist, why would I feel His presence / have these dreams / etc.? Why would things happen the way they do without some grand design to lay out all the things that destiny says will happen?" It's a romantic and attractive notion, which is a source of comfort and security for some, and a fascinating mystery to others.

For many people, the existence of God is enough of an answer, and that satisfies them. Some religious people don't have to think more about it than that -- "God exists, and that's all I need to know." Others thrive on delving deeper into the philosophy of their religion, and trying to comprehend / unravel the mysteries of their god's actions. In either case, it all boils down to people finding personal reasons for believing / doing things -- and just because an individual feels something, does not make their feelings indisputable evidence which can be tangibly verified by scientific means.

So, insofar as being able to prove that God exists, there is no such earthly measure that can be used -- people only have "feelings" and "faith" to operate on. Some might argue that the Bible is tangible evidence -- but even the Bible itself cites that it was written by many different -- human -- hands. Could they have transcribed divine words which came directly from God's mouth? Maybe. But no one can prove that such an event historically took place.

... All that being said, I do believe in God -- but I recognize that He didn't put much in the way of physical evidence here on Earth to prove His existence. I also believe He did that on purpose, so that His followers would have to walk with Him on faith alone. It's a lofty task, and it requires that believers endure many obstacles and hardships which will test their faith -- but it's a walk that many are thrilled and content to make.

Your point about standardized testing is so true. When I was in college, I majored in English with a concentration in High School Education -- I wanted to be an English teacher. But my student teaching experience taught me that not only was teaching not my true calling, but the entire school system is an insensitive, bureaucratic joke. The Board of Education and most school administrators are so far detached from the diverse cultures, realities, and needs of the students, that it's laughable that they should have a say in what goes on in the classroom at all.

... But I'm in danger of going off on a tangent. My point is: Standardized tests are written by those in positions of privilege (i.e. those witless bureaucrats on the School Board / administrators -- usually white, well-off individuals). They write questions that, at large, only students from wealthy, white, US-born families would have any context for. Their understanding of the diverse cultures of the student population is poor at best -- and frankly, they don't even earnestly try. Sure, they play the game -- they conduct research studies and review statistics on what tests / questions minorities scored lower on. But they do little to actually be culturally responsive when creating or vetting their standardized tests.

... And after researching and reflecting on all that, I'm now of the opinion that affirmative action is a crucial first step -- but it, alone, is not enough. It's one thing for admissions officers to diversify the student population -- it's another entirely for the administrators and faculty to actually take the time to be responsive to their students' cultures and needs.

All very good points! I agree -- in our modern era, we have learned that these long-celebrated historic "heroes" stood for a cause that is inhumane and morally reprehensible. As we have grown beyond their barbaric and self-serving worldviews, I believe it is high time we put away our false idols -- which practically no one believes in anyway.

In response to your note about whether or not the statues should be preserved or destroyed: I do believe that they should be preserved, either in a museum (as a relic of humankind's most disgraceful fallacies), or tucked away in a government facility somewhere (I thought maybe the National Archives or a government warehouse, but after Googling them, neither of these seem to be a place where artifacts are stored away from the public eye, so I don't know where the government would actually store something like this. I have no doubt that they have some sort of magical Warehouse 13 hidden away somewhere, though).

Anyway, I think it's important that these things be preserved as a reminder of mistakes that we should never make again, and as a visual insight into the mindset of past cultures. Similar forms of media -- such as racist old cartoons, movies, comic strips, etc. -- are preserved for just such a reason. Although they are largely banned / no longer widely circulated (you would never find "Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs" on Nickelodeon these days), they are still accessible to the public through some means (for the previous example, you can easily watch this short animation on YouTube). Just like any historic public record, they do make for valuable -- if grim -- research material.