erinosgood

Expanding the definition of terror must be done cautiously so as to avoid extreme surveillance of ordinary citizens - but the rise of incels must be taken seriously

An 'incel', short for involuntary celibate, has become synonymous with 'misogynist' in today's culture. It isn't hard to see why: the Southern Poverty Law Center described them as 'part of the male supremacist ecosystem', with conversations being characterised by misogyny, self-pity and self-hatred, a sense of entitlement to sex, and an endorsement of violence against women. But considering the subversive way innocent people are mistakenly branded as terrorists, we must make sure this does not result in discrimination:

• Islamophobia in the West thrives upon the false notion that Muslims are inherently terroristic - this has resulted in a surge in hate crimes against Muslims, especially since 9/11
• In an increasingly digital world, personal data is constantly under threat, so proper measures must be adhered to to prevent minorities being discriminated against
• However, the severity of the violence inflicted by incels perhaps warrants the definition of terrorism - just this month, a British man found to have belonged to incel communities online shot five people, prompting questions as to how he was able to purchase a gun
• Violence inflicted by incels is rooted in misogyny, racism, homophobia, and an desire for total white male supremacy, i.e. discrimination and violence in pursuit of political aims - the very definition of terrorism

There is no simple way to define terrorism, or what act can be constituted a terrorist one. Incels present one of the most dangerous threats to modern society, and must be stamped out imminently. But prevention is always, always better than cure - women dying should not provoke an argument over the definition of the event, rather a determination to never let it happen again.

This is a little misinformed, as many supposed incels have used the word as a self-description, rather than it just being a word that is given to them. It is not a word used by society to 'other' these men, as they are often, in fact, using it to isolate themselves from that very society. Therefore while the words 'virgin' and 'involuntary celibate' are synonymous in theory, they mean very different things in this context - 'incels' are the ones often associated with white supremacy and terrorism, not 'virgins'.

The horse riding elements of the sport could easily be replaced, but the luck of the draw is all part of the sport

There is no shortage of strong opinions when it comes to the modern pentathlon, both for and against its existence/adaptation:

• The showjumping element of the sport - which has often been criticised for its unfairness and cruelty - could easily be replaced with another sport that respects the event's military origins, such as climbing
• The randomness of the horses selection - whereby contestants do not get to ride their own horse and are given one from a draw - has been called unfair
• The Tokyo 2020 Olympics saw repeated accusations of animal cruelty, paving the way for further questions as to why the event still exists in its current format
• However, some officials claim that there is 'no basis for athletes to complain' about the supposed unfairness of the event, as riders should competently adapt to different horses
• Showjumping is just one event within the modern pentathlon, and so athletes should not necessarily be punished when their event can, instead, be modified

In short, the governing bodies for the sport and the Olympics more broadly must reckon with the criticism they have received, but not at the expense of athletes who have worked so hard for the modern pentathlon.

I completely agree! Welfare of both humans and animals must be prioritised, and that means that sacrificing one element of the sport does not mean it should cease to exist altogether.

No one will ever truly know what happened to Amelia Earhart - and that's fine

As humans, we have a thirst to know the unknowable, trying to defy logic to search out the truth. But, sometimes, that really is just impossible. One of those times is in the case of Amelia Earhart's disappearance:

• The theory that Earhart died on Nikumaroro, although heavily investigated by historians, is just that - a theory
• Furthermore, it is only one of many theories about Earhart's disappearance, as there is no real consensus as to what actually happened to her
• Pondering Earhart's disappearance will only provoke the most zany of conspiracy theorists to offer their perspectives, which aren't always useful

Maybe one day, an extraordinary discovery will reveal the hidden piece of the world's most unsolvable puzzle. But, realistically, that's incredibly unlikely. Maybe some things just aren't for us to know.

No, I do not know James Corden personally, but yes, I feel like his presence has overtaken mainstream media

It is frequently acknowledged that only two things in life are certain, one being death, the other being taxes. It seems, however, that a third has emerged out of The Late Late Show's mist: James Corden will be inappropriately cast in movie musicals.

There are both logical and illogical reasons for the collective dislike of the actor turned talk show host turned actor again. On the one hand, more talented performers could easily give a more convincing take on the latest Cinderella reboot. On the other, he feels like an acquaintance from years ago who posts life updates on Facebook a little overeagerly - no one is completely against them, but they're a bit much.

• Corden has repeatedly been accused of having a rude and hostile attitude towards both fans and staff, which is even more insulting considering his at times questionable success
• The Late Late Show is, according to some (myself included), 'living on borrowed time', with the show offering nothing new or exciting that isn't better executed elsewhere
• Corden's performance as a gay Broadway actor in 'The Prom' was not only confusing and misguided, but veering on offensive
• His performances have often left viewers with a sour taste in their mouths, causing them to wonder why he keeps being cast at all

An investigation into China's response to the coronavirus is absolutely necessary, but not as a way to scapegoat them for the poor response of the rest of the world

The COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly left the world in a dire position. With almost 4.5 million deaths and counting, and a devastating impact on the world economy, it is easy to want to blame China's mismanagement of the crisis. But the situation is far too nuanced for people to begin assigning blame to one nation for what has become a global problem:

• Holding China 'accountable' could be at the expense of Chinese medical professionals and citizens, rather than government officials
• Many of the worst affected countries have suffered due to a poor response from their own governments, compared to China who have done a considerably better job of containing the disease long term
• Starting a blame game stops effective cooperation to actually end the pandemic
• Casting blame can only contribute to further disinformation about the crisis
• Arguing that China should have restricted travel ignores the fact that this would have required global cooperation, and considering the continued urge to travel despite rising COVID cases, it is not certain that all nations and companies would have adhered to stricter guidance
• However, Chinese officials egregiously refused to give data to the World Health Organisation about how COVID originated, which in itself is arguably worse than not effectively containing the virus early on

The rise of populism, misinformation and violence means that America, as we know it, could never be the same

Two thirds of Americans believe that democracy is under threat. What may once have seemed an unthinkable statement to some has been realised, and there is plenty of evidence that they are right...

• On 6th January 2021, Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol building in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election - the ensuing chaos has even been called an attempted insurrection or coup
• The January attack on the US Capitol has continued to inspire more violence, suggesting that lessons have not been learned and only more radicalisation has occurred
• Conspiracy theorists, trolls, and hackers online have more power than ever, with individuals now posing a large threat to democracy
• Over 100 scholars have expressed a warning that attempts to radically change election laws threaten democracy, saying that proposed changes would mean elections were no longer 'free and fair'

In short, the threat to democracy in America is very real and very powerful. If it isn't countered forcefully and effectively, there will be a great price to pay.

Nothing is ever truly objective, but science is one of the most objective things on earth

In an increasingly polarised world of so-called alternative facts, everything is up for debate - even science. While I am absolutely in favour of scientists holding an incredibly important role in society for the work they do, it is also essential that we remember the ways science has been manipulated throughout history for nefarious purposes. Science itself is objective, but scientists are only human.

• Scientific racism has repeatedly been used to justify the abhorrent treatment of marginalised people, and social Darwinism has similarly been used for discriminatory purposes
• Scientists have bias which can impact research - this has to be minimised in order to achieve the most accurate results
• [Misinformation is particularly catastrophic when it concerns science], as it has halted our collective response to the climate crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, with the anti-vax movement more prominent than ever
• Pseudoscience must be distinguished from actual science, as its prevalence has incredibly harmful effects on people and the planet

The lesson to take here is that while we must trust facts from reliable sources, as well as improve our cultural media literacy in order to root out misinformation. None of this is to disparage science or scientists themselves, but to encourage people to think more critically - but sensibly - about the world around them. Perhaps then science is objective, and we must simply get better at recognising it when we see it.

Cooperation has increased as history has progressed, but that does not negate the antagonism and discord that has existed for millennia

The world has become increasingly globalised, especially in the last century, meaning that cooperation with other nations and cultures has become not only more common, but necessary. However, to act as if the world's trajectory has only ever been one of mutual understanding and trust is a gross misreading of the atrocities of history.

• It has been argued that globalisation both strengthens and weakens humans' motivations to cooperate, with one side preferring reactionary movements and an attitude of protecting one's own "kind", and the other suggesting that allegiances to ethnicity, locality and nationhood are weakened as they are less relevant in a globalist society
• Cooperation throughout history has often stemmed from a place of conflict, such as allies in war - while forces such as the Allies in the Second World War united, it was only to combat an enemy, the Axis powers
• The world's current globalised environment is, in part, due to the imperialism of the past - while the world is now more cooperative than it was then, it was originally inspired by a combative approach

Men and women are so cognitively similar that difference in intelligence on a wide scale can't be measured accurately

Much of the evidence cited as to why men and smarter than women is so marginal that it isn't conclusive, or contains measures that aren't accurate representations of intelligence. There is no substantial evidence that men are definitely smarter than women (or vice versa), and so it simply can't be claimed as fact.

• Any measured differences in cerebral capabilities have been so small that they have been deemed meaningless, with cultural and social factors instead making an impact on how intelligent different genders are perceived
• Studies into this idea have often only accounted for perceived biological sex, and gender identity has been largely excluded as a factor in determining intelligence
• Although [significant differences have been found in male and female brains], they do not indicate any significant (or even minor) differences in intelligence
• However, women have displayed higher levels of emotional intelligence than men, which is crucial for professional, personal, and academic discussion - emotional intelligence is intelligence

At a base level, no human is inherently better than another, and so equality should be a basic human right

There is no reason why one person should suffer because of the conditions of their birth. Race, gender, class, sexuality, and any other social descriptor should not prevent someone from attaining the highest quality of life. It really is as simple as that...

• For the purposes of this argument, we can assume that an equal world is an equitable one - where resources are distributed according to what is needed, rather than people who already have enough receiving the same as someone with nothing
• Inequality ultimately hurts everyone, as it stops countries from reaching their maximum potential
• Equality and diversity is so important that it has been enshrined in law, aiming to protect the rights of potentially vulnerable people
• A collective approach to pursuing equality and achieving social justice is more effective that and individualist, economic one, and so it is something we must all work together on
• The most powerful people in the world have such a large influence that their moral responsibility to making people more equal is clear

While studies have shown that men and women have the same biological abilities to carry out different tasks, gender socialisation has a big impact on how well prepared people are for them

Although studies on this issue have been carried out for decades, there is still debate as to how equal men and women truly are, biologically or socially. This is why we must consider these two approachs concurrently, not just thinking about how gendered our cognitive abilities are, but also how men and women are socialised to perform better in certain tasks:

• Men and women share such minimal cognitive differences that they have often been deemed meaningless, with cultural and social influences instead making gender a factor in perceived capabilities
• Studies have shown that [men and women are equally capable in mathematics]
  (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101011223927.htm)
• Typically, men are physically stronger than women (often due to having a larger height and mass) and therefore men are often deemed more suitable for physically demanding tasks such as military combat and manual labour
• However, sexist prejudice has often stopped women from even attempting roles perceived as more physically demanding, even though they are just as if not more capable than men for certain tasks
• Children have been shown to internalise cultural and social norms meaning that prejudices are imparted on impressionable young people as fact and thus entrenched further
• The impact of how men and women are socialised means that men are pushed towards more traditionally masculine traits - stoicism, risk-taking - while women are encouraged to be feminine - nurturing, reserved - which therefore influences their career choices and perceived capabilities

This shows that while men and women are, largely, biologically equal in their abilities to perform different tasks, the way that society directs them to behave influences the opportunities available and subsequent choices they make.

This is as true today as it has been historically

There is no such thing as an 'unbiased' person - everyone has bias or prejudices in some ways, but we must learn to interrogate and eliminate their ability to impact us. However, science is often lauded for its apolitical objectivity. Yet when scientists are human, this just allows for their own xenophobia to persist under the guise of progress.

• Scientific racism has been used by many fascistic leaders in order to persecute marginalised groups, such as the Nazis' treatment of Jews and white Americans' treatment of Black people
• Social Darwinism has been used to justify classism and xenophobia
• Science is commonly misused and misinterpreted in order to justify discrimination
• The arguments of extremist groups seem less radical when allied with falsified or misrepresented science, and so are more likely to be coopted by politicians

Although difficult to put into practice, no CEO should be able to profit while others suffer

Despite the difficulties behind capping CEO pay, on principle, it is the ethical thing to do. [Inequality has worsened since the pandemic began], and little has been done to curb individuals from profiting while others suffer.

• Much like taxation, this pay could be capped at a marginal rate to prevent smaller business owners from missing out
• It is not only how much CEOs are paid that is the problem, but how - exorbitant executive compensation is a massive problem
• Some may say that this would disincentivise hard work as CEOs would not strive towards profit maximisation, but this could also inspire a move away from conglomerates that use exploitation of workers and the environment to succeed
• CEOs, although often innovative entrepreneurs, would be nowhere without their workforces - when a CEO is a billionaire, it is unreasonable to say that they have made every penny from hard work

Cheerleaders, at the highest level, are both athletes and performers, so it could come down to what classification is best for them

• Cheerleading meets the definition of a sport in several ways, as 'an activity involving physical exertion and often in a competitive nature'
• The physical and mental toll placed on cheerleaders - not to mention the danger of their acrobatics - is definitely akin to that of competitive sportsmen and women
• Cheerleaders require all the skills a gymnast needs, but execute these skills in a different way – it depends how cheerleaders want the world to see them
• As cheerleading currently exists, it is most commonly seen as a performance within another sport - perhaps for it to be more widely considered a sport, better broadcasting of cheerleading competitions are necessary

We have the data to know just how life-saving lockdowns can be – if they are implemented and followed correctly

The world has seen untold disruption since the COVID-19 pandemic swept the world last year. We have seen that vaccinations are the route out of the worst effects of the virus - but without lockdowns, there would be even more variants, cases, and worse still, deaths.

• Studies have shown that non-pharmaceutical interventions, including lockdowns, are necessary for curbing the spread of the virus, which is an enormous benefit on a global scale
• The length of a lockdown can be minimised by assuring it is implemented before cases have already spread rapidly, thus mitigating the worst effects of lockdown on mental health, businesses, and more
• Lockdowns have saved millions of lives, and could have saved millions more had governments acted faster to prevent the virus spreading
• Lockdowns are but one step in the process of recovery, and shouldn't be considered the final part of a pandemic response

The worst effects of lockdown are awful, but they absolutely serve their purpose. The lesson from this pandemic is not that lockdowns are too costly (even though that can seem true) - it is that they must be followed, and implemented, with the strictest integrity.

This opinion depends entirely on what differences we are discussing

Men and women have been said to have physical, intellectual and spiritual differences, but for the less concrete examples, these differences are often exaggerated using misogynistic stereotypes. Therefore, we can't say this conclusively.

• Physiologically speaking, men typically have 'proportionately more muscle mass, more bone mass, and a lower percentage of body fat' than women
• However, claims that men are more intelligent than women have been found to be mythical at best, with the argument that women make better empathisers largely coming down to how they are socialised
• Some (though definitely not all) differences between men and women come down to personal choice
• However, societal gender norms often push women into certain life trajectories, such as homemakers due to the hiring discrimination young women face

As well as being an unethical practice, anthropologists have not concluded that patriarchy is the natural state of human life – in fact, it’s a rather recent phenomenon…

To hierarchically prioritise one group of people over another in a discriminatory way is unethical. There is no other way to put it. Even more than this, the supposed science surrounding justifications for patriarchy have been repeatedly debunked:

• Jordan Peterson's claims of natural patriarchy based on 'competence' have been quashed by neuroscientist Gina Rippon and psychologist Cordelia Fine, citing no scholarly evidence for such a claim
• Patriarchy has been shown to have an unnatural impact on the environment, from toxic masculinity preventing green initiatives to the sexist implications of climate change
• Patriarchy is based upon a series of learned behaviours that are passed down and often go unnoticed or unchallenged - this means that things may seem 'natural' when instead they are very manmade
• Women are often treated worse for the simple fact of them being women, regardless of the value they add to different circles - this demonstrates a deep, cultural misogyny that is based on a series of prejudiced assumptions about women, rather than fact

Patriarchy is, frankly, illogical. I'm not about to say that the world would be a better place if women were in charge, but it certainly would be if they weren't stopped from taking the mantle so much. What a waste.

It's true that, in film criticism and the arts more broadly, there are degrees of wrongness for how good something is in quality. But there is no such thing as one right answer.

In my opinion, Greta Gerwig's Little Women is the greatest film of all time. It is artistic, heart-wrenching, beautifully constructed and such an elegant retelling of Louisa May Alcott's beloved story. I'm incredibly biased, however - I love period dramas. If you don't then it is discounted almost immediately. The problem, then, with both my opinion and the one above, is writ large.

• Citizen Kane, in a number of ways, revolutionised film as we know it. However, with all the myriad cultures the world has to offer we cannot overstate the impact of one film on global cinema
• Logistically, no one can ever truly know the answer to this, as no one could watch every single film
• Wildly different films are brilliant for wildly different reasons, be they technical or stylistic - there is no way of accumulating a total score, and if there was that would take away from the essence of film criticism

The pandemic has reminded us of the value of the arts, and arts subsidisation should be a nuanced but varied principle

Subsidising theatre tickets should not be done without meaning. Many of the people who currently attend performances are those who can afford the often exorbitant prices – as Mark Gatiss said, ‘the West End is pricing itself to death’. But subsidising theatre tickets – in a calculated way – could encourage a host of new fans to appreciate the arts in a way they would never have been able to experience otherwise.

Theatre tickets being subsidised could have several benefits:

• Subsidised theatre enables risk-laden productions to evolve into enormous successes, as James Corden’s Tony award and the ever-revived War Horse shows
• Subsidies allow our national heritage to thrive, beyond STEM organisations
• Outreach programmes – that are truly dedicated to securing opportunities for underprivileged people – can not only bring theatre to those who would never have thought it possible before, but also inspire new talent that would have never been sparked

People absolutely should be able to sit quietly, but treating their driver like a machine is unnecessary

It shouldn’t be compulsory to chat if you aren’t feeling up to it. In what can be an intimidating environment, feeling on the spot to command conversation is nerve-wracking. Furthermore, there have been serious incidents where drivers have abused vulnerable passengers, especially young women. However, these cases have been incredibly small in number…

• Many drivers need extra income and are likely to work more than one job, and so treating a burnt out person, who may just want some kind words, like a machine is dehumanising
• I think this debate would be a different story if you were actually face to face with the person providing the service, such as a waitress.

Neither of these methods are a guaranteed fix for a healthy body and mind, and fixation on food is likely to only cause problems

Calorie counting has been shown to oversimplify the complex process of digestion, as the human body is far too complex a machine to process food in simple numbers. Moreover, fasting also can incur side effects that mean it is ineffective for certain people. Our collective approach to nutrition has to contain nuance, as a one-size-fits-all approach is just a recipe for disaster.

Here is why eating according to your own body is more important that following trends, while still staying healthy:

• The concept of intuitive eating has been praised as a method of learning your own body’s hunger signals, encouraging you not to over- or under-eat
• People have a multitude of differing dietary requirements from nut allergies to lactose intolerance meaning that while fasting may be effective for some people, it could be problematic for others
• Fixating on the content of food or how to maintain nutrition has been linked to disordered eating habits, such as orthorexia.

Nutrition is essential for a healthy life. But a hyperfixation on what you eat and how you eat it is a slippery slope that is not to be taken lightly.

Feminism is so often entangled with how women present themselves – why are women’s issues so closely tied to appearance?

Women are so much more than their appearance. To most of us, this isn’t something that needs to be said, but when arguments like this come around it is a clear reminder of just how much women’s worth, values and traits are assumed based on the way they present themselves physically. In 2021, we should be past this.

This is worrying for a number of reasons:

• The concept of beauty as an ethical ideal is incredibly perverse, as investigated by Professor Heather Widdows – her book Perfect Me demonstrates how being seen as visual perfection (in whatever way the beholder determines that) therefore correlates to moral perfection is an egregious way to judge a person’s character
• Feminist stances must move beyond aesthetics in the 21st century, especially considering the serious issues now affecting the world’s women and girls
• Gender binaries make beauty standards – such as high heels – incredibly limiting for non-binary or gender non-conforming people

Why do questions of oppression always result in competition?

Discussing discrimination and oppression is an incredibly nuanced task. There is no way to consider issues in isolation, which is why theories such as intersectionality are incredibly useful for avoiding a reductive or hurtful approach. But this does not mean that people who have existed in a hierarchically superior position in society – for centuries - can now make discrimination into a contest.

There are many reasons why this opinion is worrying:

• Discrimination is defined as ‘treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favour of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit’. Men have, historically, never been disfavoured purely for their maleness, except on an anecdotal, individual basis.
• Sexism is not a contest – there is no need for fighting over who has it worse
• Competing with others as to who has worse circumstances stops any progress from being made at all

Creating micro generations only causes differences to be put under a microscope

There are many issues confronting the youngest of Millenials and the oldest of Generation Z. The housing crisis seems to constantly find new peaks, students are financially worse off than ever and the COVID-19 pandemic has worsened an already worrying mental health epidemic in young people. The problem, therefore, is not what label young people are given. It is how they are vilified.

There are several reasons why 'millennials' as a concept is unnecessary:

• Creating microgenerations is a new way for companies to try and get money out of young people - marketing to a new group is a key outcome of these divides
• Dividing people into microgenerations causes the differences between people to seem greater than their similarities, like those listed above - they affect all young people
• Millenials and Generation Z have lots of cultural similarities, having grown up and come of age with a backdrop of global catastrophes, ranging from 9/11 to the financial crash to COVID-19. This means they often look at the world in similar ways

Ultimately, however, there is one key factor that defines this argument - it just doesn't matter. Young people (or rather the youngest of young people) will always be embarrassed by the cringeworthiness of their elders, and the same can be said vice versa. It doesn't mean there aren't meaningful similarities between the two, or that the label they are given by birth year makes a significant difference on their lives. So-called 'Zillenials' may not fit the definitions of either Millenials or Generation Z - but does anyone, really?

Thank you for your comment! I agree too, I think that generational classifications can be great for a sense of identity, I just don't think it's something that we should place too much importance on for data and other purposes. But it's very true that microgenerations can be beneficial socially!

The issue of statehood pertains not just to Puerto Rico, but also DC and Guam - but there is no simple solution

Following the results of their 2020 status referendum, Puerto Ricans officially favour statehood. However, Puerto Rico is not the only US territory that has a complicated relationship with America. Whether it isGuam's long, painful history of colonisation or District of Columbia's bureaucratic entanglements, there are many things to consider when adding a new state to the union:

• Although a majority of Puerto Ricans have confirmed they are in favour of US statehood, that does not mean the US Congress will guarantee it.
• Statehood could offer hopes for a new era away from the history of colonialism
• Some say that a self-governed Puerto Rico is the best way forward, rather than becoming the 51st state

There is no way to create a blanket solution for each of these regions, and the nuances should be accounted for. But when we discuss Puerto Rico, we should acknowledge that its situation is not entirely unique.

The Olympics needs to do more to protect vulnerable people and punish wrongdoings, including China's atrocious human rights abuses

There are many ways in which the Olympic Games, despite the great good they do for morale and opportunity, fail to adequately support people from host nations. The Tokyo 2020 Games have faced enormous backlash and even a campaign for them to be cancelled over coronavirus concerns, and Rio was one of many hosts to evict working class people from their communities in order to build event facilities. China's Winter Olympics will be no exception, with the added humanitarian crisis of the Uyghur population being sent to so-called 're-education camps'.

The 2022 Games should be boycotted, if not given to a new host . Here's why:

• China has repeatedly stopped the reporting of abuse against Uyghur Muslims
• The European Parliament has already voted to boycott the Games, giving the campaign further momentum and encouraging other nations to do the same
• Athletes should not be expected to culminate their dreams in amongst the turmoil of a humanitarian crisis - it is not something they should have to sacrifice, but they may choose not to compete if China isn't stopped from hosting

Personally, I love the Olympics, and think that it is the greatest demonstration of excellence in the world. But sport is never as important as justice. If genocide is not enough to make people take a stand, I don't know what is.

This kind of ableism is a slippery slope towards a society that criminalises disabilty

Disabilities can be incredibly difficult to live with, but they should not stop someone from being able to have children - that kind of implication is something that, historically, is far too familiar.

There are many reasons why this kind of thinking must be quashed:

• People should not be made to feel like they do not deserve to exist because of their disability
• At what point do we define a disability "serious" enough for it to be deemed enough to sterilise a person?
• This kind of rhetoric lies dangerously close to historic scandals where those deemed undesirable were sterilised, often because of discriminatory beliefs such a racism
• Serious disabilities should be accounted for when people are deciding whether or not to have children, but that is the responsibility of the person with the disability, and no-one else

The #MeToo movement needs to be more inclusive in order to make a bigger impact on society

Tarana Burke's #MeToo movement has the power to have a brilliant impact on the way women are treated on a daily basis. However, her message has often been co-opted by people whose commitment is only surface level, and focuses primarily on a white feminist perspective. There are definitely things that can be improved upon:

• Modern day feminism must face a reckoning as to how individualist the approach will be to sexual assault and harassment allegations
• #MeToo must offer equal spotlight to underprivileged women as it does to Hollywood stars
• #MeToo must address the unique issues faced by women of differing circumstances, as a one size fits all approach does not work

Barefoot running is good, but only for some

When it comes to exercise, science can only go so far. There are some truths universally accepted after conclusive evidence in support of them - no one would deny the benefits of good hydration - but other things are harder to prove.

Barefoot running, essentially, is a question of choice:

• What sort of runner you are can affect whether or not barefoot running is right for you
• Barefoot running can cause injuries much less likely to occur with shoes
• Barefoot running, although freeing for some, can be uncomfortable and is unsuitable for some terrains

No individual religion has anymore evidenced 'truth' than another, and it is too difficult to define in itself to be considered the ultimate truth

Religion is an incredibly sacred part of the lives of millions of people all across the world. It brings spiritual comfort and a sense of enlightenment, as well as encouraging communities to come together and support the less fortunate. However, religion can be manipulated and used for nefarious purposes, which mean that to call it the ultimate truth is quite alarming.

There are several reasons why the benefits of religion should not be overstated as a universal way of life:

• While religious institutions have been sources of great pride and joy for some, they have also caused immeasurable suffering for others, such as sexual abuse allegations in the Catholic Church, which have been repeatedly covered up
• Corruption has been a notorious problem within religious institutions, as religious leaders are able to abuse their power for personal gain, particularly financially
• Many religions throughout history have systemically discriminated against certain groups, such as women, ethnic minorities, the LGBTQ+ community and those who practice other faiths - religion does not determine your morality

This list is not exhaustive - the way in which religion is claimed to be 'truth' cannot be applied to all aspects of these organisations. The religious beliefs themselves are not the problem, rather the organisations that lead the teaching of them.

There is no conclusive evidence of the existence of a higher power, and so to conclusively say that every person has a unique destiny to fulfil is wrong

When considering how one's life pans out, there are certainly a many number of factors out of our control. The conditions of your birth such as location in the world, class, family circumstances and education all have (to some extent) a significant impact upon the way you live your life. But to say that every person has a 'destiny' to fulfil assumes that there is, definitively, a planned version of your future. This can only be imagined.

There are several reasons why the concept of 'destiny' is flawed:

• Coming from the Latin meaning 'decree, prediction or fate', 'destiny' implies that every individual's future has been planned out, with the ending already imagined - there is no way of proving this
• A potentially more convincing philosophical theory is determinism, whereby all events have already been determined by pre-existing causes - therefore, one's 'destiny' is unknowable and will only ever be fulfilled if it is inevitable to do so
• Conceptions of destiny differ greatly depending on cultural and religious beliefs, therefore there is no one true definition of it

Believing in a chosen destiny, however, is a potentially fruitful way to colour one's life. By making certain decisions based on what you want the outcome to be, and allowing yourself to believe in free will, is much less likely to cause an existential crisis. Destiny, however, is something you cannot guarantee.

Considering his professional misjudgments and the content of his character, the purported genius of Elon Musk has been grossly overstated

Elon Musk, the centibillionaire CEO of SpaceX and Tesla and founder of PayPal, The Boring Company, Neuralink and OpenAI, is one of the richest people in the world. More often than not, such wealth is equated with a sense of cerebral, professional, even moral superiority; for Musk, however, I could not think of a less fitting description.

There are a multitude of reasons why Musk should be brought down to size, including:

• Musk is not an entirely self-made man. His father was an electromechanical engineer and property developer who at one point owned an emerald mine in his native South Africa - during apartheid. (Musk has called his father an 'evil' man, but this has not stopped him profiting from his empire).
• Musk and his brands have a, frankly, disgraceful history of misogyny, racism, transphobia, and a flagrantly mercurial attitude to the needs of others.
• Musk's first wife, Justine Wilson, has since discussed the emotional abuse she suffered while married to the billionaire, calling herself a "starter wife" and detailing how Musk didn't understand why Wilson grieved their infant son's death so openly.
• Professionally, Musk has had many failures, including being ousted as CEO from his own company.
• After Musk's own submarine was ultimately inconsequential for the rescue of 13 trapped civilians in a Thai cave, Musk called the British diver who criticised his efforts as a vanity project a 'pedo'.
• Musk's purported intelligence further came into question after he criticised fears over the coronavirus pandemic as 'dumb', and repeatedly spread dangerous misinformation.

I could go on, but frankly, I would rather not spend anymore time dwelling on the most odious parts of his character. It is true that he is skilled in some areas, but he has repeatedly showed us that what he perhaps has in business acumen or scientific knowledge, he makes up for with his complete lack of sense. However, beyond Musk as an individual, we must further interrogate why billionaires are so societally lauded. Why are they so valued? Do we as people share a deep envy for the lavishness of his circumstances? Or is our hyperfixation with the super rich borne out of a desire to knock them off their high horse? It's true what they say that money does not equal happiness - but if you had everything that Elon Musk had, maybe your smirk would be just as nauseating.

Whilst it is true that there is no perfectly ethical consumption under capitalism, there are ways to mitigate some of the worst effects of your habits

In our climate change-afflicted, poverty-stricken and simply depressing world, it is easy to become defeatist. Why should I remember to bring a reusable bag to the supermarket or switch to an electric car when just 100 companies are (supposedly) responsible for more than 70% of the world's global emissions? If large companies are the problem, then surely they should change rather than individuals, right? Right, but there's things that consumers can do too:

• The consumer habits of wealthy countries massively impact climate change, with the richest 1% of the global population emitting more than twice the amount of fossil fuels than the poorest 50%
• Consumers can make sustainable choices, even on a smaller everyday level, that eventually have a substantial impact on their carbon footprint
• Choosing to buy from smaller businesses is more likely to guarantee ethical working practices and a smaller impact on the climate
• Simply buying less, rather than nothing at all, can have a positive impact

If all women truly had an innate maternal instinct, they should be trusted to know what is best for their bodies and their children

Due to patriarchal standards, women are frequently made to feel that they cannot adequately care for themselves or their children. In many circumstances, men claim to know better. And yet, in cases where women seek to terminate pregnancies or advocate for family planning services, the ultimate fallacy is then proclaimed - women are inherently maternal! How can both these things both be true? The answer, of course, is that they can't.

There are many reasons why arguing that women all share a 'maternal instinct' is flawed:

• Women who become mothers to children they did not biologically conceive or give birth to are made to feel inferior, despite providing the same love and care as biological mothers
• The existence of women who do not want and never have children [disproves the idea of a female maternal instinct](https://medium.com/@jenniferneal_39017/the-maternal-instinct-is-a-myth-and-weve-got-the-science-to-prove-it-de435786adbf
• Parenthood is a learnt skill rather than an innate knowledge - there is no one way to be a mother

If women are to be given the responsibility of 'maternal instinct', then they can also be trusted to know when they would rather not receive it.

A separation of church and state is essential to a democracy

All people should be allowed to govern their lives in any way they choose. This includes religion and spirituality, of which there are thousands of different belief systems and subsets of those systems by which to colour your life. However, in a society where elected officials seek to govern their citizens' lives and make decisions on their behalf, they should not allow religions that cannot represent every perspective lead their judgement.

Reasons why a separation of church and state include:

• Strict adherence to religious doctrine in political matters can lead to fundamentalism, which does not account for the nuances of people's lives
• Prioritising one religion over another minimises the varied cultures around the world, leaving some people poorly represented
• Politics free from religion means that people are free to live according to their faith, publicly, without fear of state political interference
• Religious issues do not dictate public policy or stop other prominent issues from being discussed when religion does not influence politics

Religion is practiced by millions of people. However, that does not mean it should dictate the lives of those who do not choose to have faith.

Infidelity is an egregious breach of trust, often causing irrevocable emotional damage

A marriage, for all intents and purposes, is a binding contract. Within it, both parties inscribe a sense of obligation upon one another, one of the most self-evident being a sense of loyalty. Unless a degree of openness has been discussed, it is a breach of that contract - and thus the relationship as a whole - to engage in an affair.

There are many reasons why an extra-marital affair is an instant red card, including:

• The emotional distress caused by infidelity can lead to serious mental health problems
• A loss of trust in a serious relationship can have a detrimental impact on the betrayed person's ability to form healthy attachments in future
• Cheating means that people are more likely to have problematic traits, such as narcissism, lack of impulse control, and a fear of emotional intimacy
• Infidelity affects more than just the partners involved, but also any children they have, friends, family, financial obligations to one another and living situations

Infidelity is, frankly, unacceptable. It is fair that there are many reasons why a person cheats, and that their partner may be far from perfect in the first place. But the point is, it is ultimately a betrayal to the trust a partner placed in their other half. There is always another way out.

The trend cycle is robbing us of individualism

Alas, hairdressers and stylists are yet again at an impasse. To mullet or not to mullet? The mullet has already returned in full force, and salons are at the behest of TikTok teens and the need to keep up. But should they?

• Much like their matching fashion trends of the 1980s, I doubt that many of those who cut mullets now will look back at them affectionately in the decades to come. Some will, certainly! But definitely not all...
• Those who do look back fondly on their mullet will likely have kept it, as it suits them, rather than it being a case of following the crowd
• The mullet is a cultural icon that must be allowed to exist on its own terms, no matter the era
• Finding your own personal style is a rite of passage, and if the mullet is part of that then go for it! But finding your unique look is different to following a trend

Although it is proven that Anastasia did not survive, the power of this myth tells a story in itself

In 2001, it was confirmed that Anastasia Nikolaevna, Grand Duchess of Russia, had not survived when her family was executed by Bolshevik revolutionaries in July 1918. However, with decades of rumours and impostors, the legend of the missing princess has continued to live in infamy. Of course, it is true that Anastasia did not in fact survive, but there are ways in which she did that others do not.

• Her (supposed) life has been dramatised on numerous occasions, even including a Broadway musical often under the guise of historical accuracy with just a touch of creative license
• Anastasia and her family have been canonised as passion bearers for the Russian Orthodox Church, elevating her to a status of sainthood
• Many women impersonated the missing duchess, with the most famous being Anna Anderson. The allure of Anastasia's legacy was so powerful that Anna's own story has also been dramatised, and women persistently claimed to be the duchess with poor evidence

Anastasia's survival is, in the literal sense, fiction. But in a broader cultural way, she is still alive to this day.

TL;DR To refuse to get the vaccine not only hurts others around you, but yourself

It has been said many times that you should get the COVID-19 vaccine in order to protect more vulnerable people who either do not have access to the vaccine, are immunocompromised, or cannot receive it themselves for whatever reason. Further to this, refusing the vaccine is a disservice to the effort your body commits to continuing to survive.

Some reasons why it is responsible to get the COVID-19 vaccine include:

• Being vaccinated protects you from developing severe symptoms, so that you are less likely to die or be hospitalised if infected
• Vaccinations offer more protection from new strains of viruses, and thus can help contain the spread
• Vaccinated people are likely to have freedoms realised quicker, such as international travel
• Side effects are mild, and so are much less severe than the virus itself
• Vaccines can help protect against long covid, which has been debilitating the lives of young people for the entirety of the pandemic

Therefore, if people do not wish to get vaccinated for a sense of collective responsibility, then they should for a personal one.

TL;DR Any form of non consensual taunting - the function of catcalling - is harassment

There is little ground to dispute the fact that catcalling constitutes harassment, so much so that it is now often referred to instead as 'street harassment'. Catcalling is unwanted, causing the victims (of which almost 90% of those in the UK are female) to feel more vulnerable to sexual violence.

There are many reasons why catcalling is a form of harassment:

• Catcalling is not a compliment, rather it is an act deeply entrenched in a culture of misogyny
• Street harassment emboldens abusers to act violently and perpetuates sexual violence, like the rape and murder of Sarah Everard
• Women do not feel safe alone, to the point where men need to be instructed on how to make them feel more at ease
• Many women cite their first incidents of being victim to catcallers as when they were still minors, including when they were in school uniforms, normalising a culture in which girls are sexualised and abused
• Girls are forced to understand the ramifications of sexual harassment at a very young age, whereas boys' education on why catcalling is wrong is continually lacking

Catcalling is unacceptable, and allows men to feel a sense of power over women. Women cannot be made to feel vulnerable, and have every right to walk free from harassment - which is exactly what catcalling is.

TL;DR Putting down the gender pay gap to personal choice ignores the structural inequalities that cause women to earn less

When it comes to the gender pay gap, there are two ways of measuring it: the non-adjusted versus adjusted pay gap. The latter accounts for differences in hours worked, occupations chosen, education and job experience. This means that the adjusted pay gap is much smaller, and also a more accurate representation of wage disparity between men and women. However, to put down the pay disparity that does exist to personal choice rejects the fact that gender discrimination forces women to make certain choices.

Some reasons why women are paid less include:

• Women are expected to bear the brunt of household tasks, (even when they are the breadwinners of their households) leaving them less time to seek out demanding and thus higher paid careers
• The Motherhood Penalty: managers have been seen to avoid hiring younger women to avoid the prospect of maternity leave, whereas men with or wanting children may even be given raises or promotions due to the expectation that they will be the main earner
• When an industry is female-dominated, it often has lower pay than if it were male-dominated
• Female-dominated industries are perceived to be less prestigious
• The like-for-like gap in senior partner roles has been found to be 5% less for women in some companies, despite the only difference in employees being their gender
• The gender discrimination women experience in the workplace prevents them from progressing professionally, and thus financially

The gender pay gap, as it exists now, is not based on choice. The choices that women make, as this article further explains, don't contribute to why they earn less than men, as the factors that go into those choices are beyond their control. Gendered wage disparities are certainly smaller than they ever have been before - but that doesn't mean that the gap doesn't matter anymore.

TL;DR The #MeToo movement needs reform, but we have to acknowledge its victories

There are several reasons why the #MeToo movement deserves criticism. From a lack of representation for women of colour (including Tarana Burke, the originator of the phrase), to a disregard for incarcerated women, the cause has at times been problematic. However, the movement's issues can be reformed, and focusing solely on criticising it detracts from the very important work it has done.

Some ways in which the #MeToo movement has been good for society include:

• Some of the most powerful people in their industries, such as Harvey Weinstein, have finally been held accountable for years of crimes
• Anti-harrassment laws have begun to be introduced
• The Time's Up legal defense fund has helped over 4,000 people seek justice for sexual harassment and abuse
• More has been done to educate boys and men about rape culture, and the devastating effects it has on society
• Google's data shows that the phrase 'Me Too' has reached global heights after being searched consistently worldwide, thus spreading awareness and making this an international campaign
• After more women came forward in the public eye, businesses' sexual harassment policies now receive much more intense scrutiny

There is still a long way to go, but to say that #MeToo has overall been bad is to completely diminish the brave women - and men - who have told their harrowing stories. The courage they summoned in the face of extreme adversity is awe-inspiring, and cannot be forgotten. Women's allegations are still being dismissed: lest we forget the abuse Christine Blasey Ford received when she came forward against Brett Kavanaugh. However, because of #MeToo, she was given a voice. Now, we must work to give her, and thousands of others, justice.

TL;DR The pursuit of knowledge and a depth of understanding, in any topic, is a valuable feat in itself

There are many understandable reasons as to why university is considered not 'worth it'. Financial burdens, time pressures, strains on mental health and elitist cultures are just some of the qualms people have with educational institutions. But as a principle, university is definitely worth it.

University benefits people in a variety of academic ways:

• Being surrounded by peers with like-minded interests encourages students to pursue interesting trains of thought they may not have considered before
• Reading academic literature expands students' vocabulary
• University helps students get experience of independent projects that prepare them for the workplace, such as dissertations
• University gives students access to knowledge that they never would have been able to find otherwise (the inaccessibility of academia, however, is problematic)
• Increasing your knowledge - and nuanced understanding - of different subjects can greatly enrich your life, as it can not only help you discover new passions but it can make you more empathetic to other people through understanding their struggles
• University can improve problem-solving skills

Furthermore, the benefits of university extend beyond the lecture hall:

• For young people, university is often their first real taste of independence
• University can encourage students to interact with people they never would have done otherwise
• Extra-curricular offerings are more easily available at university than anywhere else, building opportunities for team-building, socialising, keeping active and mentally well
• Mature students can rediscover a love of learning and have another opportunity to succeed outside of work and family commitments

More than anything, university is an opportunity for people to pursue what interests them, regardless of the supposed employability or 'usefulness' of their chosen subject. Every degree has meaning, from Chemical Engineering to Philosophy. To say that a degree is only 'worth it' if is in a STEM subject is to miss the point of university completely. Of course people have different priorities, and if employability is the main one then Medicine is probably a better course than English Literature. Nevertheless, English Literature is still worth it.

TL;DR Publicly funded institutions guarantee service to all, but there needs to be more stringent regulatory measures

(Please note that my response is largely in reference to debates about the BBC in the UK, and whether or not the license fee is justified)

The BBC is one of the most highly-coveted organisations around the world, but it also faces some of the toughest criticism due to the public funding it receives. Whilst it offers a range of services that no other broadcaster can parallel, there are significant issues to be addressed.

The benefits of a publicly funded broadcasting service include:

• There is no advertising due to the financial structure of publicly funded broadcasters
• Having a license fee grants the BBC editorial independence and impartiality as the broadcaster is not beholden to sponsors
• Increased accountability means that the BBC must act according to public interest

However, there are considerable qualms:

• There is little regulation as to both how democratic and representative public broadcasters can truly be
• The BBC has failed to fund minority cultures and languages
• As the cost of living increases, the price of the license fee is too high for many people, and is not scaled according to income as with other taxes.

Therefore whilst I disagree with this statement due to its somewhat lack of nuance, I recognise the need for a better system than the one currently in existence.

TL;DR Men's issues are equally as important as women's to address, but we cannot conflate them without any nuance

In recent years, domestic abuse against men and a damaging culture of toxic masculinity have, rightly, been receiving more attention. It has become a more frequent point of discussion that men suffer from a number of issues to an arguably more serious degree than women:

• Men are more likely to be diagnosed with depression
• Men are more likely to commit suicide
• Boys are more likely than girls to report adversity, including physical neglect, violence and sexual abuse

However, these statistics fail to consider why women do not experience the same issues, or the severity of the issues they face:

• Women are less likely to be believed about their mental health issues
• 80% of women in the UK have been sexually harassed compared to less than half of men
• 74% of domestic abuse victims are female, with their inflictors almost exclusively being male

To say that women experience gender-based discrimination and violence at a higher rate is not to say that's men's experiences are invalid, quite the opposite. But to insinuate that men's issues are not to do with a crisis in toxic masculinity, but women pressuring them to be 'manly', is problematic. Men must be helped, but also held accountable, as violence against women is a men's issue.

TL;DR To call intersectionality ‘gobbledygook’ is to completely misunderstand its definition and purpose – it is a tool for understanding social differences

American lawyer and philosopher Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term ‘intersectionality’ in 1989, creating an analytical framework to more acutely understand how different aspects of one’s social and political identities intersect, thus creating different modes of discrimination and privilege. This was never intended as a way to victimise women of colour and other minority groups, but to instead encourage nuance within discussions of discrimination. If one is both Black and a woman, then those factors must be considered concurrently.

A number of reasons show not only why intersectionality is necessary, but why arguments against it are flawed:

• Different issues affect different cultural and social groups, and an intersectional approach accounts for the many different identities that can exist within one person (e.g. race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, class etc.)
• Intersectionality prevents a ‘one size fits all’ approach to reform, e.g. an intersectional outlook means that a poor Black woman who grew up on a council estate in London would not be considered the same as a white privately educated woman from the Cotswolds. These are just examples for which nuance is also necessary, but they demonstrate how treating all women’s issues as identical is problematic.
• The purported ‘culture of victimhood’ that intersectionality is said to encourage is a gross misreading of what is simply an academic theory, much like the misconceptions surrounding critical race theory. Intersectionality originated as a legal principle, not a tactic designed to radicalise. Crenshaw herself discussed this: [‘This is what happens when an idea travels beyond the context and the content’] (https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/20/18542843/intersectionality-conservatism-law-race-gender-discrimination)

The very existence of sexism and racism is not up for debate – they exist, and will continue to exist. Intersectionality is simply a means to understand the impact that these two things have when combined.

TL;DR If legislators expect to keep the promises of their campaigns, they should dedicate less time to campaigning

U.S. presidential elections are held every 4 years, which is a significant enough period in which to govern successfully. Or so one might think. The excessively long American campaign cycle inhibits presidents from being able to legislate effectively, the same being even truer for members of Congress.

For presidents and members of congress, there are a number of factors influencing their ability to reform government, all to do with the lengthy campaign cycle...

• It is sometimes said that the race for the presidency begins the day after the election, i.e. the 2020 election results were confirmed on Saturday 7th November, meaning the 2024 presidential campaign began on Sunday 8th November. This means that presidents are constantly watching out for opponents rather than advocating meaningful policy, even when they are in their second term.
• Congressmen and women in the House of Representatives are elected every two years, meaning there is no real time to enact lasting legislation without a considerable majority
• The lack of regulation on campaign finance laws makes members of Congress beholden to their campaign donors, meaning that they cannot afford to lose the support of wealthy organisations for fear of losing their seats. Considering how long candidates must campaign for, this money is an essential factor in their success

Authority, in a democratic society, is granted to individuals by the people they are charged with serving. Perhaps then it seems obvious that the governed parties should have the right to question, critique and expel those who do not meet their needs. Authority is a privilege, not a right.

Contextualising this debate and thus defining what 'authority' even consists of can further illuminate why it is essential that, at the very least, people in any position of power deserve to be questioned. Politicians are just one example. If a governing party does not meet the promises laid out in their manifestos - their very reason for winning authority - the public will replace them at the next election. By contributing taxes, people have the right to not just question politicians, but oust them. This complicates, however, when we consider the most obvious example of an authority figure: parents.

Unlike politicians, parents cannot be replaced. There is no fund that offspring may contribute to in order to demand better care, as they instead take from their mothers, fathers and guardians while often only reciprocating with love, at least for a significant period of their young lives. It's hardly a relationship of balance. However, this does not negate the fact that children and teenagers are entitled to question their caregivers if they do not feel that they are being treated adequately. In fact, they should question their parents and guardians in order to understand why they may make certain unpopular decisions. A child should question why they are not allowed to eat sweets for breakfast, lunch and dinner so as to learn the benefits of a balanced diet and lifestyle. A teenager should question why they aren't allowed to experiment with dangerous substances or drink to excess so as to learn the dangers of addiction. In this instance, questioning authority does not mean rebelling against it.

Ultimately, authority is not something that is granted or accepted lightly. People who take this responsibility have a duty to the safety and dignity of their dependents, and their own consciences for the decisions they make in their stead. The least they can do, therefore, is be held accountable.