Sofia

Tl;dr: Identity politics and group identity are ruining democracy because in attempting to account for all society’s inequalities, each group searching for recognition ends up alienating others who could be allies.

Identity politics refers to the political movements and ideas of groups of people, most commonly minorities in society, who share similar experiences with discrimination and oppression; race, sexuality and gender are just a few examples.

Originally, this provided a collective voice for the group’s troubles to be heard and to bring attention to a particular issue in society. However, the fragmentation and proliferation we see now has meant that each of these social and demographic groups looks out largely only for themselves.

While all of these issues deserve to be heard and addressed, in practice, it is impossible to prioritise everything at once, leading to the division of what could be a united movement for more equity and a fairer society.

This leads politicians to pander to the loudest voices, creating an environment where inclusivity and equality are the biggest buzzwords but very little is done to solve the very issues being advocated for.

Identity politics has created an “every group for themselves” mentality which causes discord between different groups seeking recognition and equality, and alienates potential allies outside of these groups, as they feel their interests cannot possibly align.

Is there a better way? I don’t know. But the divided are famously the conquered, and Donald Trump’s election proved this point clearly. Each identity and minority group deserves recognition, absolutely. But that will not be achieved until there is a clear voice heard, not a cacophony of outcries over who the most oppressed group in society is.

Could you link either a video or article about the gay wedding scene in Arthur?
I'd vaguely heard of the show, but could not have told you the name of it...

This is the equality vs equity argument, just rephrased.
Equality in this case would be gender blindness, where everyone should be treated the same. Equity, on the other hand, acknowledges the differences and tries to account for them.

Tl;dr: Alcohol is damaging to the health people who drink it, the mental health of the people around those suffering from addiction, and society as a whole. Alcohol should be banned because it causes millions of deaths and ruins millions of lives each year.

Alcohol is a drug which has had a prominent place in most societies for centuries. Drinking is a social activity and it fills its role well. However, as a drug, it is also harmful to the human body and addictive. Abusing it leads to damaging consequences from both a health and societal standpoint. Personally, I also think it tastes disgusting, but that’s a different debate altogether.

The [WHO] (https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/alcohol) estimates that around 3 million deaths each year are a direct consequence of alcohol abuse. This is particularly severe for young people, those aged 20-39, for whom it is estimated around 13.5% of deaths can be attributed to alcohol.

But there is more. Alcohol is also linked to increased risk of disease and injury. It is cited as a causal factor for more than 200 diseases and injuries, ranging from mental health disorders to physical ailments.
There are many who drink alcohol all their adult lives without drinking to excess or suffering adverse effects. But there are also many who do abuse it, leading to catastrophic consequences, destroying not only their lives, but that of those around them.

Perhaps a bit extreme, but I think alcohol consumption should be banned altogether. This could not happen overnight, but much like the tobacco industry, I believe we should restrict and discourage drinking with a view to banning it altogether in the future.

I always thought that cookies were a kind of biscuit, and therefore, that all cookies were biscuits but not all biscuits were cookies.

Tl;dr: Intersectionality should be a useful tool to understand the impact of inequality but the lack of understanding surrounding it renders it ineffective in today’s society.

As a relatively new term, intersectionality is often unknown or misunderstood. Kimberlé Crenshaw, who originally coined the term in 1989, explains it as: “a prism for seeing the way in which various forms of inequality often operate together and exacerbate each other”.

Yet this definition has been distorted by its supporters as well as its critics, to a point where it becomes hard to remember its original purpose. This is largely because the very definition requires thought and research. In a world full of inequalities, each experience is unique and many different factors should be accounted when analysing the discrimination people face.

To its critics, it’s either too complicated to understand, and thus pay attention to, or a good word to distort and use against the feminist movement. To its advocates, there is little consensus, and the infighting only gives it less legitimacy.

While in a perfect world we could tackle all inequality at once; and indeed, in a perfect world, inequality would not exist at all; we don’t, and we can’t. Prioritising may seem hard in today's society, were there is a seemingly endless list of issues to take on, but we must if we want any hope of making progress.

Intersectionality is a good theory which should provide guidance and understanding. But the lack of a united front to defend it only serves to show society is not ready for it.

Tl;dr: Obesity is a disease because it is harmful to the people who suffer it and can lead to premature death.

The WHO and many other medical institutions’ definition of disease is not very clear or specific. However, most can agree that a disease refers to a condition, often with symptoms, which restricts quality of life and/or shortens life expectancy.

The WHO calls obesity an epidemic and warns of the impact to the world population if nothing is done to curve the growing number of people affected. It kills over 4 million people a year and can lead to further ailments over time. Obesity can arise from genetic, environmental or personal factors, but it can be diagnosed and treated.

Of course, being comfortable in your own body, regardless of weight, should be a priority. But being severely overweight can lead to lower quality of life. The excess weight puts additional pressure on hip and knee joints which may lead to walking difficulties or disability. And with obese patients being 20 times more likely to need knee replacement surgery than a person who is not overweight, this is a real possibility.

It is also linked to lower fertility rates, in both men and women. Men have an estimated 10% lower fertility for every additional 10 kilos. In women, one study found 66.4% of obese women conceived after one year in contrast to 81.4% of women with lower weight. This is, in part due to the hormonal imbalance attributed to the higher weight.

Obesity can also lead to further complications and a higher risk of developing other ailments, such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, strokes, among others.

Yet obesity is a disease in itself because it impedes normal life, lowers life expectancy and is responsible for millions of deaths worldwide every year.

Further reading:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1299105/

https://www.nature.com/articles/0802479

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6179496/

I hear he has a licence for it...

In Spain, women keep their surnames after marriage. This has been the case for centuries.
It’s not a perfect system, but people have two surnames on their passport, first their father’s then their mother’s.

And yet, in Spain, children still have their father's name first and then the mother's on their passport. This is a matter of course and I have heard of no cases where this is reversed.

Is that fair? Do the children belong first to their father's family and then their mother's?

Tl;dr: The A in LGBTQIA+ refers to asexuals/aromantics not allies. This is because asexuals/aromantics are members of the community whereas allies, while important, are not.

The LGBTQ+ community generally refers to people who are not heterosexual cisgendered. This should include the community of [asexuals] (https://www.asexuality.org/?q=overview.html) who do not feel, or rarely feel, sexual attraction; and the aromantic community who do not feel, or rarely feel, romantic attraction, and therefore should not be considered heterosexual.

These are also minority sexual orientations which are under-represented and who can feel insecure about their own feelings and sexuality. The lack of awareness surrounding this sexuality and the erasure it faces in media and conversation, even within the LGBTQ+ community itself should also be enough to include them in the community.

On the other hand, allies do not go through the insecurity and potential discrimination faced by many in the LGBTQ+ community. Allies are vital to the LGBTQ+ community, but they are not members who should be represented in the acronym. Being an ally means taking action, but it does not form part of your identity in the same way.

Do you think there is at least scope to reduce the number of guns? In the short term it does look rather impossible to get rid of civilian firearms. But do you think there may be long term ways to reduce the access to fire arms or eventually get it to a less dangerous amount?

So do you mean mostly at university? Or would you suggest schoolchildren have a say in what they learn? When does this start, primary school? Secondary education?

Personally, I would say children would be less likely to understand what knowledge will be useful to them in the future. There are also too many subjects they need to learn at school before they can decide what they want to specialise in.

For countries like the UK, where the legal drinking is 18, is there any evidence of more measured drinking among 18-21 year olds?

When I think of music streaming applications, my mind would first jump to which will have more music, or whether I will be able to find all the music I am interested in, no matter how obscure?

So while additional features can make or break an app, do they both have a similar music selection?

While forks are my preferred cutlery in this case, cake can be eaten with any utensil as any cake can objectively be scooped up with any utensil and put in one’s mouth.

While spoons and forks may seem like the more obvious alternatives, knives have the added bonus of allowing you to defend your precious dessert from those who would steal it from you.

I have never tried eating cake with chopsticks or cooking utensils (less sure whether I am spiralling into dangerously ridiculous territory here), but if that’s all I had, it would not impede me from enjoying the best part of my meal.

It goes a little beyond the opinion, but I would argue even uniforms are a form of expression. Not everyone wears the same clothes in the same way. You might roll up your sleeves to indicate you like doing things with your hands, wear badges or stickers, or not do up the top button of a shirt. They all tell you something about the person wearing the uniform.

Is there any evidence that people are drawn to certain styles or colours?

How much of the negative effects of elite sport participation of children would you attribute to competitive parents and coaches?
I personally think giving goals and showing improvement to a child helps them develop their competitive spirit and confidence. To me, the real problem is the pressure that is put on children by the adults around them.

It feels like you are making two separate points here. How do you think making period products free relates to the reduction in the stigma and taboo around periods?

You've given a couple of general examples of Gothic literature representing the monstrous "other" in society.

Do you have any specific examples of Gothic literature alluding to current affairs or the political framework of the time? Or, how are your previous examples related to the politics of their time?

That's quite fascinating. I had heard and understood (at least somewhat) the social criticisms of Gothic literature, but I had a harder time seeing the political implications. Thank you for your example!

But what is it in particular about trans fats that means they should be banned? [Smoking] (https://www.parlia.com/o/social-media-has-mainly-negative-psychological) kills an average of 7 million people across the globe, around 480,000 in the US alone, and smoking is still allowed. It's highly regulated, I'll grant you that, but it remains legal.

I think Twilight is the most well-known example, but certainly not the only one. Many [YA books] (https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/30121.Abusive_Relationships_in_YA_Fiction) and series portray very problematic and toxic relationships as romantic.

Many teenagers and young adults are influenced by what they read and what they see on television. So this concept, that a romantic relationship will change the abuser or that they are just misunderstood, encourages young people to either accept or seek out similar relationships to those they have seen misrepresented in their favorite books or films.

I want to clarify that, whilst I have read the Twilight books, I have not read the vast majority of the books in the linked list.

I do see your point, but would you not agree that there needs to be some standardized guidelines in order for the country to run appropriately? For me, an example where regional districts' authority sometimes backfires could be Spain.

In Spain, each region has its own government and there is a lot more independence in political policy, as well as the education sector as you mentioned. But this does come with its own disadvantages. Looking no further than the pandemic response, each region had its own guidelines and rules to follow. In some, people could travel freely, while others did not allow people to leave or travel through them. This led to some regions being “locked in” despite their rules allowing them to travel. There was also mixed messaging from the government and regional governments, and not enough communication between the different regions, leading to discrepancies in testing.

A more centralized approach could have avoided some of the miscommunication and sent a clearer message to Spanish people.