freyaehope

How often we shower depends on personal and cultural preference

• Bathing habits are personal and cultural; how we wash is partly down to personal preference, but strongly influenced by social expectations, traditions, religious beliefs, economy, and climate.

• Showering is one of the most popular forms of bathing in the world. A study on the bathing habits of people from Great Britain, China, Germany, Brazil and the USA found that showers were favoured over baths in all of these countries.

• It is disputed how often we should shower. In Great Britain, 63% of women and 58% of men shower once a day. The sociologist Elizabeth Shove notes that the popularity of the daily show is a relatively new habit in Western countries – only two generations ago, it was common for people to wash once a week. In contrast, people from Ghana, the Philippines, Colombia, and Australia often shower multiple times a day. People from Brazil shower the most often, with an average of 14 times a week.

• Many argue that regular showering is necessary to maintain good hygiene and good health. When we shower, we remove bacteria and pollution which could otherwise lead to illness or infection.

• However, recent studies have suggested that showering too often can be bad for your health. Dr Robert Shmerling explains that washing too often can wash away the skin’s natural oils and healthy bacteria that our bodies need. This can break down our skin’s acid mantle, which acts as a barrier to viruses and bacteria, making us more vulnerable to infection. Experts suggest that optimally we should take short, lukewarm showers a few times a week.

Elf is a festive favourite

• Jon Favreau’s Christmas movie Elf is a festive favourite for many. The plot follows Buddy (Will Farrell), a human raised as an elf, and his misadventures in trying to fit into the human world.
• The movie review website Rotten Tomatoes grants Elf a critic rating of 85% and an audience rating of 79%, planting it firmly amongst the best-reviewed movies on the website.
• According to Forbes, Elf is the 5th highest grossing Christmas movie of all time, earning $220.4 million worldwide. Its financial success reflects its popularity.
• Of course, film opinions are subjective and everyone has their own personal favourites. In an IMDb poll, the film critics and the public voted It’s a Wonderful Life as the best Christmas movie of all time, with Elf taking a humble 7th place.

Canonical or colonial?

• Joseph Conrad’s novella Heart of Darkness (1899) is arguably one of the most widely-read and controversial books ever written. It follows Charles Marlow, the captain of a boat for an ivory trading company, on an expedition of Africa along the Congo River.

• Heart of Darkness is generally thought to be of literary merit and is firmly placed within the Western canon. The Guardian recently placed it at number 32 of the greatest books ever written. The academic Harold Bloom claims that it is “now recognised as the most studied work of literature in college and university curricular”. Many perceive the novel to be a critique of imperialism.

• However, others have criticised Conrad and argue that the novel promotes a colonial and racist mindset. The Nigerian writer Chinua Achebe argues in his postcolonial essay (amended from a lecture) ‘An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness’ that Conrad “was a bloody racist”, depicting Africa as “the antithesis of Europe” and dehumanising African people. Achebe contends that we cannot split the artist from the art: he asks and concludes “whether a novel which celebrates this dehumanisation […] can be called a great work of art. My answer is: No, it cannot.”.

Is secret-keeping a sign of maturity or mistrust?
TW: Child abuse

• Many children keep secrets from their parents, from infancy to adulthood. Child psychologists and parenting experts disagree whether this is a natural part of child development or a symptom of parental mistrust that could make the child vulnerable to danger.

• Some believe that secret-keeping is a sign of maturity and developing personal boundaries. Research on the social and cognitive factors of child secret-keeping has found that secret-keeping increased with age and suggested positive development.

• A study of secrets among 3-5 year olds find that young children use secrets to form intimate relationships with their peers, and associate secrets with happiness, games, and imaginative play.

• Others fear that keeping secrets from parents can put children at risk of danger, such as child abuse. Many encourage open conversations between parent and child, to build a strong support system for the child. Keeping secrets can be tied to shame, which can be harmful to mental health and wellbeing.

The Great Loo Roll Debate

• Toilet paper was first invented in China in the 13th Century, but was only first sold in a roll in 1857 in America. Ever since, humans have argued over the correct orientation of toilet roll. There are two schools of thought: that toilet paper should be hung ‘over’, with the loose end on top; or that toilet paper should be hung ‘under’, with the loose end behind the roll. The sociologist Edgar Alan Burns argues for the sociological significance of this debate.

• Proponents of the ‘Over’ school contend that this method of hanging is more hygienic. In a scientific study of bacteria in bathrooms, researchers found that most bacteria could be spread through contact with contaminated surfaces. When toilet paper is hung ‘over’, you only touch the toilet paper itself, reducing this risk, whereas when toilet paper is hung ‘under’, it is likely that your hand may touch the contaminated wall behind it.

• However, ‘Underists’ argue that hanging the loose end ‘under’ creates a “natural tension” that helps to tear a sheet off and prevents accidental unravelling, which is more economical and sustainable. Many prefer the aesthetics of a toilet roll hung in this manner, as they believe it looks tidier.

Is Facebook’s algorithm sociopathic?

• Facebook uses algorithms based on artificial intelligence to maximise user engagement and keep you scrolling through your phone. Research suggests that these algorithms can be harmful to our health, security, and society as a whole. Some allege that they magnify and prioritise antisocial behaviour, political extremism, and racism in order to engage users, and go as far as to label Facebook’s algorithms ‘sociopathic’.

• Researchers have found that many people suffer from Facebook addiction, which they define as “excessive, compulsive Facebook use for the purposes of mood alteration, with negative personal outcomes”. Facebook’s algorithms, which are designed to present content it predicts will interest you, make this addictive. Like any addiction, this can be debilitating, affecting personal life, sleep patterns, and overall health. Recent research has found that Facebook can have many negative effects on mental health, including eating disorders, jealousy, and feelings of inadequacy.

• Several studies imply the potential dangers of sharing your information over a social media platform like Facebook. Facebook’s algorithms analyse your online habits to predict your future behaviour. They then use this to create an online persona or behavioural profile for you, which has become so sophisticated that it can mimic your actions, desires, thoughts, and even your voice with 95% accuracy. Many feel that this poses a security risk as, hypothetically, someone could impersonate you online and no one would be able to tell.

Human life is inherently valuable and an end in itself – it is unethical to trade this for a ‘greater good’

• The saying ‘the ends justify the means’ means that something is ‘good’ if its result is beneficial, regardless of whether this was achieved through unethical methods. This line of thought is often found in Consequentialism, the moral theory that the result of something determines whether it is ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

• Many struggle with this as an ethical framework, as in extreme cases, it theoretically excuses torture and police brutality among other violent acts most would usually condemn.

• The philosopher, Immanuel Kant, argued that humans should never be treated as a means, but as an end in themselves. He perceived human life as inherently valuable, meaning that its value doesn’t depend on anything else. Therefore, it is wrong to harm one human for another, as they are both ends that cancel each other out.

Scientific research was used to invent nuclear weapons – we must protect our society from such deadly consequences

• In popular opinion, science is generally thought to be a progressive force for good: scientific research cures disease, creates innovative solutions, and teaches us how to protect our environment. However, scientific research is also used to invent nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, which make the world more dangerous. Publishing such research has arguably been detrimental to social equality.

• The production of nuclear weapons has historically exploited less-privileged members of society, such as those from minority and low-income backgrounds. Studies have shown that nuclear fallout disproportionately affects women: in 1945, when the US detonated nuclear bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, women were nearly twice as likely to develop cancer from exposure to ionizing radiation. Nuclear weapons are damaging to social equality as they widen the gap between the powerful (who choose whether to detonate them) and the marginalised (who suffer most from the threat of war).

• If the science behind these weapons had not been researched and published, these specific problems would not exist. We should learn from these past consequences and review the potential of scientific research from an ethical perspective.

If Scots want Scotland to be independent, it should be

• As an English person, I don’t feel entitled to decisions over the governance of someone else’s country. I think that only Scottish citizens should decide whether Scotland should be independent or not, as it would affect them the most.

• Many Scots feel that they are not represented effectively in government, which is held in Westminster, 382 miles away from Scotland’s border. The UK government represents 4 different countries which arguably have four different sets of political and economical needs. Many argue that the government serves the needs of England (and particularly the South of England) disproportionately above the others.

• In the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum, the people of Scotland voted to stay in the United Kingdom, with 55.3% voting to remain and 44.7% voting to leave. However, many speculate that a re-vote would now yield different results post-Brexit. In the 2016 EU referendum, whilst the UK as a whole voted to leave the EU, Scotland unanimously voted to remain.

Jean-Pierre Houdin’s internal ramp theory

• The Pyramids of Giza were built 4,500 years ago. The construction of the first pyramid began in around 2,550 BC and stands at 147 metres tall. Mathematicians have estimated that it contains 2.3 million stone blocks, that weigh between approximately 2.5 and 15 tons each. Historians and architects continue to puzzle over how the Ancient Egyptians were able to carry such heavy blocks of stone.

• The archaeologist Jean-Pierre Houdin has theorised that the Ancient Egyptians used an internal ramp system to carry the stones and build the pyramids from the inside out. This system would spiral upwards throughout the pyramid, with turns at each corner and a pulley system in place to carry the stones.

• In 1986, a French team of archaeologists used microgravimetry to take thermal images of the pyramids. One later remarked to Houdin that one of their images resembled his computer models of an internal spiral ramp.

• Archaeologists from the French Institute for Oriental Archaeology and the University of Liverpool have discovered the remains of a ramp system in a quarry in the Eastern Desert of Egypt.

Equal rights are human rights – these should be at the heart of lawmaking

• Laws are the framework of our society; they are rules made to regulate social behaviour in a way that benefits the greatest number of people. The word ‘law’ comes from Old Norse and literally translates to ‘that which is fixed or set’: the rigidity of law is implied in its name. When governments make laws, they should ensure that they are applied fairly and consistently to everyone, in order to be beneficial to society.

• Equality and justice are human rights. For law and governance to function successfully, it is essential that it is fair and accessible, and does not discriminate against anyone, especially those who are already marginalised.

• Unfortunately, there are many laws that are directly or indirectly biased against certain groups of people. In Lebanon, if a man marries a woman after raping or kidnapping her, he cannot be prosecuted. 46 countries have no laws against domestic violence. The sociologist Jeffrey H Reiman argues that all laws are created in the interest of those in power (who make the laws), and that these are often biased against poorer people. He states that “the more likely a crime is to be committed by higher class people, the less likely it is to be treated as a criminal offence”.

• The judicial system itself does not treat people fairly. In the UK, black people are 44% more likely than white to serve prison time for driving offences. Trials and sentences are often harsher for people of colour and working-class people than for white people and middle-high class people.

Radical criminology states that crime is caused by capitalism

• Radical criminology argues that crime is defined under the terms of the ruling class, which it distinguishes from the rest of society. Originating from Marxist theory, radical criminologists contend that the concept of crime and the policing of it is a form of social control that maintains elitist power over the subject classes. Critics argue that that this definition is "not necessarily reflect(ive of) the interests of those who are powerless or those at the bottom end of society".

• This argument states that capitalism causes (and benefits from) crime. Capitalism relies on economic discrepancies within society, that leads to the elevation of some and the exploitation of others. Convicted criminals are rarely from the 'ruling class' because of the nature of capitalism: Jeffrey H Reiman argues that “the more likely a crime is to be committed by higher class people, the less likely it is to be treated as a criminal offence”. As laws are created by those in power, he suggests that these are shaped in regard to their interests. In addition, the judicial system penalises subject-class criminals more harshly than ruling-class criminals. This maintains and widens the power dynamic between the ruling class and the rest of society.

Humans are genetically wired to create hierarchies

• Like most social animals, humans are innately dominant; we live to compete against and subjugate each other. Scientists have recently identified certain genes in humans associated with dominance over others.

• Studies have suggested that this characteristic serves a social function: the development of rank and hierarchy leads to a stable society.

• Nature itself is hierarchical. From food chains to plants competing for light, there are many examples of hierarchy occurring in the natural world, which implies the inherency of this infrastructure.

• However, whilst I believe that hierarchy in society is natural, I don’t necessarily believe that this is morally right. By the very nature of social hierarchy, it benefits some and mistreats others. Whilst many equate ‘natural’ with ‘good’, philosophers have criticised arguments that rely on this structure, calling this ‘naturalistic fallacy’.

Tradition and morality are interlinked, but we should be critical of both at face value

• Traditions are a set of cultural beliefs and values, sometimes manifested as unofficial social rules, that are handed down through generations. We all internalise the traditions of our society and for many people, whether consciously or not, they form a framework for their ideas about morality.

• In Britain and the USA, the common law that governs our lives is founded on tradition. Berkley writes that “it is largely based on precedent, meaning the judicial decisions that have already been made in similar cases”; by many, tradition is regarded as a trustworthy way of making moral decisions.

• However, over the past 100 years, our societies have changed dramatically. Many argue that the traditions that were once relevant or beneficial to society are no longer useful, and can instead be discriminatory and damaging, to our current world. Some believe that we must critically assess certain customs or ingrained beliefs in order to progress society, and must not understand tradition as synonymous to what is right.

It depends on how hard-hitting the spanking is
• Spanking is a form of corporal punishment used by some parents as a method of discipline for antisocial behaviour. Some reason that by hurting a disobedient child as punishment, the child will associate misbehaviour with pain, and avoid the actions that led to it in future.

• Many argue that spanking is not abusive when used for a specific purpose and “with the intention of causing a child to experience pain, but not injury”. Research has shown that mild and irregular spanking can improve a child’s behaviour and compliance to other kinds of discipline.

• Spanking may not always be considered abuse itself, but studies have shown that parents who engage in corporal punishment as a form of discipline are more likely to be or become abusive to their children. The psychologist Elizabeth Thompson Gershoff describes the limitations of corporal punishment: “There is general consensus that corporal punishment is effective in getting children to comply immediately while at the same time there is caution from child abuse researchers that corporal punishment by its nature can escalate into physical maltreatment”. Physical punishment can culminate in serious physical injuries, and studies have shown that it can cause mental health problems, feelings of fear and resentment towards parents, and a hindrance to cognitive development.

Casinos are unethical

• Many argue that casinos should be banned, as they take advantage of people with gambling addictions and other mental health disorders, such as Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, that can lead to problem gambling. Many believe that casinos are unethical because they profit off of vulnerable people with gambling addictions, which are extremely harmful and difficult to overcome.

• In the USA, many states are partially funded by casinos and gambling revenue. The Rockefeller Institute of Government has exposed that in recent years, 10 states have amassed more than $1 billion a year in this way. David Brunori criticises this mode of state-funding as he argues that it preys on the vulnerable and disadvantaged: “gambling is regressive – poor people gamble more than rich people”.

• Some people believe that gambling and casinos are immoral, for both religious and ethical reasons. Whilst gambling is not explicitly condemned in the Bible, many Christians consider gambling to be immoral because the love of money is portrayed as sinful.

Knowledge for the sake of knowledge makes us human

• One facet of knowledge is that it can be used. We can apply learned knowledge to certain situations to solve problems, create solutions, and work towards something better. In society, the learning and teaching of knowledge are used to maintain structure and discipline, and to give people a sense of purpose and self-improvement. The philosophy of knowledge is called epistemology.

• However, use is not the only aspect of knowledge that makes it valuable to humanity. Knowledge can create joy.

• Humans are inquisitive by nature. We are wired to seek out mental stimulation and enjoy learning new things. Scientists attribute our lifelong capacity for learning to neoteny, the evolutionary theory that we have retained child-like characteristics more so than other mammals.

• The Greek hedonist philosopher Epicurus argued that knowledge had no other value than to give pleasure to the learned.

Elisabeth Kübler-Ross’s model of grief

• In her book, On Death and Dying, the psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross split the experience of grief into 5 stages, devised from her work with terminally ill people.
• Denial: When a person receives news of death, they may immediately believe that this is a mistake as part of being in shock. This stage is a survival tactic that allows your mind time to process distressing information without being overwhelmed.
• Anger: Many grieving people feel frustrated and resentful towards themselves, their loved ones, or the deceased person at times.
• Bargaining: This stage describes an anxiety around what could have happened to avoid the death, or around finding a way to explain it.
• Depression: Perhaps the most common and expected stage of grief – grieving people often feel defeated, hopeless, and sad.
• Acceptance: For many, grief never ‘goes away’ but they learn to live with it, and as time goes on, loss becomes bearable. Those in the acceptance stage of grief are able to be mindful of their emotions.
• Many argue that these stages are not necessarily linear, and that not everyone experiences every stage. Some argue that there are other stages of grief excluded from Kübler-Ross’s model.

How do we define ‘unnatural’?

• Nature is important to humans. Partly due to our dependence on nature, in most societies, cultures, and languages the ‘natural’ has accrued positive connotations, whilst ‘unnatural’ has accrued negative. Because this is so ingrained in our ways of thinking, many people argue that certain acts are wrong primarily because they are deemed ‘unnatural’, whilst others are right because they are ‘natural’. In philosophy, this line of thought is called ‘appeal to nature’ and often appears in discussions about medicine, chemicals, and food.

• Many philosophers have criticised arguments that rely on this structure: they name this ‘naturalistic fallacy’. The philosopher G. E. Moore termed the phrase in the early 20th Century, arguing that what is good cannot be defined or reduced to natural properties.

• This statement is also built upon a preconception of what is natural and what is not, which is arguably subjective. Most understand ‘unnatural’ to mean things or actions that do not independently occur in nature, and that must be created by man. People who believe that we do not have free will may argue that no human act is unnatural, as all of our actions are predetermined.

• Many ‘unnatural’ acts, such as IVF and vaccinations, are widely regarded as beneficial to society. Therefore, many do not believe that these are unethical.

Most people are inherently, but not intentionally, racist; acknowledging this is an important step towards anti-racism

• Our society is systemically racist. Historically, white people have held more power, privilege, and status than people of other races, who have consequently been subjugated. This has led to a combination of social bias and institutional power that favours white people over others. Unfortunately, racism is still a major issue across the world.

• Racist attacks and overt racism have become less common over the past 50 years, however, many still hold racist beliefs. As by-products of a racist society, I argue that most people are inherently racist, even if unintentionally.

• Studies have shown that most people possess some unconscious level of prejudice or stereotype against people of other races – this is referred to as implicit bias. Psychologists have devised a test to measure implicit bias; the subject is shown pictures of monotone white and black faces in conjunction with positive and negative words, and must click as quickly as possible to categorise the words and faces. Results show that most white people find it slightly easier to associate positive words with white faces than black, revealing a subconscious preference. Even babies show racial preference for people of their own race.

• Acknowledging that most people show racial preferences and prejudices is an important step in moving towards anti-racism. By confronting our own internalised racism, we can contribute to creating an anti-racist society.

Maybe ‘White Fragility’ exists, but is this term useful in moving towards an anti-racist society?

• ‘White Fragility’ is a term coined in 2011 by the white academic Robin DiAngelo in her discussions of race. DiAngelo defines it as “a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable [to white people], triggering a range of defensive moves […] These behaviours, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium.”.

• DiAngelo argues that all white people are intrinsically racist against black people, due to their privileged position within a racist society, and that they must work to confronting their inner racial prejudice. She believes that understanding white fragility is key to this.

• In many ways, we can observe DiAngelo’s concept played out in real life. All over social media, there are examples of white people becoming annoyed, defensive, upset, or aggressive in conversations about race.

• However, others believe that the term ‘White Fragility’ is unhelpfully polarising and hinders anti-racist progress. The journalist Chidozie Obasi writes that the term itself “amplifies the idea that Black people can’t discuss race with white people because they’re afraid to cause offence or discomfort”. John McWhorter goes as far as to find DiAngelo’s argument condescending towards black people and overly-condemning to white; he likens DiAngelo’s argument for the intrinsic racism of white people to “original sin”.

Science suggests that telepathy is possible

• From ancient lore to popular culture, the possibility of telepathy has continued to fascinate humans. Telepathy is the practice of communication through only the mind; the transfer of thoughts from one person to another at a distance, without use of our known senses.

• Throughout history and all over the world, there have been countless reports of telepathy. Some may argue that the sheer number of these support its existence.

• In the early 20th century, telepathy became zeitgeist and many scientists set up experiments to test its credibility. In the 1930s, the psychologist J.B Rhine notably tested people for telepathic abilities by using a set of playing cards designed by Karl Zener: subjects had to name the card without seeing it. As several of his subjects consistently named correct cards at a significantly higher rate than chance, Rhine argued that this supported the possibility of telepathy.

• In recent years, scientists have successfully invented ‘brain-to-brain interfaces’ (BBIs) which allow for thoughts to be transmitted between humans without any other form of communication. Through the use of magnetic stimulation and natural electrical brain currents, the study managed to create a basic communication system out of only brain signals and electrical pulses. In August 2014, scientists claimed to have successfully transmitted thought between humans from India to France.

The problem of moral responsibility

• For thousands of years, philosophers have debated whether it is possible for humans to be morally responsible.

• This is part of a wider debate concerning free will, the theory that we have control over our actions and decisions. Many argue in favour of causal determinism, the theory that humans do not truly have free will as all of our ‘choices’ react to previous choices, and therefore are tied to determining factors which dispel any freedom of choice.

• In recent years, psychologists and social scientists have argued that regardless of whether free will exists or not, we must all be held as morally responsible for our actions in order for society to function successfully.

• Many contest that this is an impossible paradox: can humans possess responsibility without free will? If we are programmed to act in certain ways, is it morally right to condemn these actions and can we therefore be held responsible for them? The American philosopher Peter van Inwagen writes that “to be morally responsible for some act or failure to act is at least to be able to have acted otherwise”.

Shorter school days would not suit every child, especially those with learning disabilities

• Around the world, most children attend primary school for an average of 7 hours a day, including time for lunch, breaks, and sport. Some have proposed that shorter school hours may benefit primary school age children, as this would allow them more time for extracurricular activities, play, and sleep. However, I argue that a 4-hour school day would be detrimental to the academic development and wellbeing of many children, especially those with learning disabilities.

• Teachers would presumably have to cram the same curriculum (or at least the same standard of education) into a 4-hour day. In order to cover the same material on such reduced hours, teaching and learning would have to be accelerated which may ostracise children who take longer to process or learn information, such as those with learning disabilities like dyslexia or dyscalculia.

• As a result of shorter school days, children would likely receive more homework, which again may exclude children with learning disabilities whose parents (without specialist knowledge) may not be able to support their learning adequately. Studies have shown that children with learning disabilities (and their parents) experience significantly higher levels of stress during homework than their peers without learning disabilities. Many children with learning disabilities experience low self-esteem and anxiety around schoolwork. With less time to learn and less professional learning support, these issues may intensify.

Is acknowledging victimhood celebratory?

• In their book The Rise of Victimhood Culture: Microaggressions, Safe Spaces, and the New Culture Wars, Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning argue that in today’s society, asserting victimhood can grant high moral status. They place their discussion in the context of race, but victimhood is also debated in concerns of gender identity, sexuality, and class.

• In recent years, it has become common for people to speak out about their experiences of abuse and discrimination over social media, such as in the #MeToo movement. Many do so in order to expose wrongdoing, to educate others, and more personally, to regain a sense of empowerment and justice. Many believe that these acts contribute to making society more compassionate and open.

• Others claim that this move towards openly claiming victimhood is a celebration of victimhood. They criticise this cultural shift, claiming that victim mentality can be psychologically damaging for individuals and society as a whole.

• Some dislike the narrative around victimhood because they believe that it is divisive. If victimhood is celebrated, then privilege by proxy is shamed. Many disagree with contemporary debates about acknowledging societal privilege as they find this concept polarising and harmful.

Paying for sex is a moral issue

• To some degree, most people perceive sex as a moral issue. Most cultures throughout human history have had specific social rules about sex which have fluctuated over the years, but linger today. Paying for sex from sex workers, in person and now online, has always been taboo and regarded as a moral concern.

• Many object to others paying for sex because they believe that both the buying and selling of it is immoral. In many religions, such as Islam and Christianity, sex is often considered a sacred act exclusive to married couples.

• Others disapprove of paying for sex because they think that the sex industry is dangerous and takes advantage of vulnerable people. Many condemn the sex industry for its prevalence of violence and occasions of sex trafficking.

• Many believe that paying for sex enforces gender-based power dynamics because the majority of people who pay for sex are men and the majority of sex workers are women.

• However, many others argue that there is nothing immoral about paying for sex if it is consensual and done so safely. Many choose to become sex workers, find their work fulfilling, and appreciate their clients’ custom.

What is the patriarchy and does it affect everyone?

• A patriarchy is a social system structured around male power and dominance (which subsequently suppresses women and non-binary people).

• Many argue that the patriarchy pervades every society in the modern world and its past. Historically, men have occupied most positions of influence, such as political leaders, scientists, artists, writers, and scholars – men have shaped the way we think, whilst women have mostly been excluded from this narrative.

• Patriarchal ideas are thought to affect both men and women negatively. Because of societal bias, women face more discrimination in their careers, leadership positions, healthcare, family dynamics, and sexual relationships. In turn, many men feel compelled to live up to certain standards of masculinity which can be harmful to wellbeing and mental health. This is often called toxic masculinity.

• Some argue that a singular Patriarchy does not exist, as many patriarchal societies conflict with each other. They may believe that these patriarchal societies stem from different causes and principles, and enact their power over women in different ways and to different degrees.

• Others argue that the patriarchy no longer exists because in many countries women have achieved equal rights to men and men do not have complete dominance.

Mankind or not all men?

• Some people hold the view that men are to blame for many of life’s social problems, such as violence, rape culture, and war.

• Because most societies have historically been and continue to be patriarchal, some argue that societal inequality is rooted in male dominance. Many argue that misogyny is systemic and that therefore all men, whether or not they are personally misogynistic, benefit and therefore on some level uphold the patriarchy.

• Others claim that this is a broad and unfair statement, arguing that men are not responsible for all of life’s problems. The movement #NotAllMen argues against the assumption that men are sexually violent. Many believe that the condemnation of ‘all’ men damages efforts to create an equal and peaceful society.

Does porn degrade or empower women?

• Pornography (or porn) is a genre of media that exhibits sex for the purpose of the consumer’s sexual arousal. In the present day the most popular type of porn is video porn viewed online, in which actors perform sex acts.

• Many genres of porn display the domination, humiliation, and abuse of women. A 2021 study of porn sites found that 1 in 8 of every porn video advertised to site newcomers included acts of sexual violence against women. Many fear that these themes promote rape culture and violence against women.

• Some people argue that porn degrades women in its objectification of their bodies. Many women find porn alienating due to its presentation of a certain type of female body and develop negative self-image as a result of this. Whilst some argue that porn objectifies male and female bodies in equal measure, many argue that this is not the case due to the fact that the majority of porn-viewers are male.

• Many porn actresses find their work fulfilling and empowering. Some people argue that the concept of pornography does not automatically degrade women, as both men and women are equally depicted engaging in a common human activity. Some studies have found that porn-viewers are more likely to be feminists than non-porn-viewers, suggesting that porn does not degrade women but destigmatises female sexuality.

Do purely chance coincidences exist or do they have a scientific cause?

• A coincidence is a phenomenon when two or more things seem to relate by chance, without reason or explanation.

• Many people believe in coincidences because we all experience this sensation at some point. Mathematicians have calculated that the chance of having the same birthday as an unrelated person is only 1 in 23.

• Others argue that coincidence does not exist and can be explained away by science. Some psychiatrists have theorised that humans transmit invisible energetic information which can be subconsciously interpreted by others and recognised as coincidence. Others suggest that we experience coincidences simply because our brains are wired to interpret patterns.

• Some people believe that there is no such thing as a coincidence because they believe that everything happens for a reason. Many proponents of this view may believe in fate: the concept that events are destined and fixed.

Is monogamy human nature?

• Monogamy is the practice of engaging in a committed sexual relationship with only one partner.

• Monogamy seems to be natural for some animals. Studies of the sexual patterns of animals have found that many animals mate exclusively for life, including multiple types of birds, wolves, octopods, gibbons, and worms.

• Many humans engage in monogamous relationships. Many value the principles of monogamy, and believe that these kind of relationships offer ultimate stability, intimacy, and support for both partners. Some sociologists have argued that monogamy is a part of human nature, as male humans have always fathered their children unlike many animals, as a way of ensuring their paternity.

• Many argue that lifelong monogamy isn’t natural for humans, and cite high divorce rates as a result of societal pressure to commit to monogamous relationships.

• Many people enjoy casual sex with multiple partners, and find this lifestyle fulfilling. Some people identify as polyamorous, and consensually engage in committed relationships with multiple partners.

Is sex a morality issue?

• In most cultures, sex is attached to ideas about morality. Most societies have specific perceptions of why, when, and how we should or shouldn’t have sex.

• Pre-marital sex is condemned in many [religions] (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0003122412458672) in which marriage is a religious practice, such as Islam, Hinduism, Christianity and Judaism. Many religions value sex highly and understand marital sex as a way of honouring God. Pre-marital sex is often considered a form of adultery and a sin.

• Historically, women who engaged in pre-marital sex have been shamed and shunned by society. In late 17th Century Britain, an unmarried woman’s honour and reputation were tied to her virginity. At the time, many considered pre-marital sex to ‘ruin’ a woman and could destroy her future chances of marriage (which was an important social and financial opportunity).

• In many cultures in the present day, many people do not believe that pre-marital sex is morally wrong; it is not only common, but encouraged. Many people believe that having sex with a partner before marriage can build intimacy, confirm your compatibility and strengthen your relationship.

• Many believe that pre-marital sex is the personal choice of the couple: it can be wrong for some people, and right for others.

Is the term ‘human milk’ more inclusive?

• Several medical institutions, such as Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals’ prenatal department, have recently swapped the term ‘breast milk’ for ‘human milk’ in order to be inclusive of transgender men and non-binary parents giving birth.

• For many, the word ‘breast’ is heavily associated with women. Some consider ‘breast milk’ and ‘breastfeeding’ to be linguistically alienating and exclusionary of transgender men and non-binary people giving birth.

• Many have commended this change, and believe that it will enable more pregnant transgender fathers and non-binary parents to have a better birthing experience. Some believe that the change might encourage more transgender and non-binary people to choose to give birth in hospital.

• Others argue that ‘breasts’ are not exclusively feminine as every body has breast tissue – some proponents of this view therefore argue that this linguistic choice is unnecessary.

• Some people criticise this change, as they fear that it decentres women from narratives around giving birth.

Is sexuality genetic and can it change over time?

• Sexual orientation is a part of identity that categorises who we are sexually attracted to in terms of gender. People experience sexual attraction in many different ways: some are only attracted to people of the opposite gender, others only to those of the same gender, some to many genders, others regardless of gender, and some not at all.

• In 1948, scientists theorised that sexuality exists on a spectrum and presented this idea as a scale called The Kinsey Scale. Inspired by this initial scale, many have now created new scales to better represent the complexity of sexuality.

• We cannot choose our sexuality. Many believe that it is something we are inherently born with, and therefore is pre-destined and fixed.

• Historically, many cultures have believed that it is possible to change your sexuality, often in the context of homosexuality. Due to homophobia and discrimination, many gay people have been forced or chosen to undertake conversion therapy in order to become heterosexual – however in many places this is now thought to be unethical and impossible.

• Some believe that sexuality is genetic. Many people believe that our genes are pre-coded and fixed, and therefore infer that sexuality is fixed. However, others argue for the existence of epigenetic gene switches (where genes get switched on and off) and conceive that this may cause fluidity in sexuality.

• Many people argue that sexuality is not fixed, but fluctuating and changeable. Some people experience different sexual preferences at different times and ages, and may identify as sexually fluid.

What is gender dysphoria?

• Transgender and non-binary people are people who identify as a different gender to the one they were assigned at birth. Non-binary is often used as an umbrella term for people who experience gender somewhere in between or outside of the male-female binary.

• Gender dysphoria is a feeling of extreme distress and discomfort in relation to one’s gender identity. Often, people with gender dysphoria feel uncomfortable with the gender they were assigned at birth (usually in correspondence with their biological sex). Gender dysphoria has at times been considered a mental disorder, but many now argue against this label as they consider it stigmatising and harmful towards transgender people.

• For many people, experiencing gender dysphoria leads them to realise that they are transgender. Transmedicalists argue that you must experience gender dysphoria in order to be transgender – some believe that being transgender is caused by gender dysphoria, rather than the more commonly regarded view that gender dysphoria can be a by-product of being transgender.

• Others disagree with this opinion and argue that many transgender people do not have gender dysphoria. Whilst transgender people often feel a mismatch between their gender identity and their biological sex, many do not experience extreme distress about this, and feel comfortable in their bodies and self-expression.

Is gender fixed or fluctuating?

• Gender is a concept that we use to interpret who we and other people are. It is a social construct that relates characteristics, behaviours, societal roles, and other forms of self-expression to labels based on a binary of the masculine and feminine. At birth, we are usually assigned gender in correspondence to our biological sex, which in most (but not all) cases is male or female.

• In the Western world, we have historically understood gender through binary terms – however, many argue that this is not the extent of gender. Many people understand and experience gender outside of the traditional binary, and imagine gender as a fluid spectrum.

• Many believe that gender is not fixed but fluid, and fluctuates over time. Some people may at times feel more affinity to a certain gender identity than another, or the way they express their gender might change.

• Some people identify as gender-fluid, which means that they do not have a single gender but fluctuate between many. Some days they may feel more masculine, and on other days more feminine.

• Others argue that gender is not fluid, often because they interpret gender as synonymous with sex and determined by physical characteristics. Proponents of this view may argue that gender is fixed because you are born a certain way.

• However, others would oppose this argument by distinguishing ‘sex’ as relating to our physical characteristics and ‘gender’ as relating to our identities and sociocultural roles in society. Many argue that sex itself is fluid, proven by the existence of intersex people and the physical changes that transgender people experience when transitioning.

Does free will exist and does it matter?

• Free will is the idea that we have control over our actions and choices. For thousands of years, the existence of free will has been hotly contested in philosophical debate.

• Many philosophers, such as Augustine, have argued that free will exists and is a vital part of human nature. They use personal experience as evidence for the existence of free will - we experience a sense of agency, ‘make’ our own choices, and feel as if we are in control of our decisions.

• Compatibilists, such as Thomas Aquinas, believe in both free will and determinism, arguing for their logical compatibility.

• Other schools of thought argue against the possibility of free will. Causal determinism states that all of our ‘decisions’ react to previous decisions, and therefore are not free as they are tied to determining factors.

• Many contemporary psychologists and social scientists believe that whether or not free will exists, we must all be held as morally responsible for our actions in order for society to function successfully.

Does free will exist and does it matter?

• Free will is the idea that we have control over our actions and choices. For thousands of years, the existence of free will has been hotly contested in philosophical debate.

• Many philosophers, such as Augustine, have argued that free will exists and is a vital part of human nature. They use personal experience as evidence for the existence of free will - we experience a sense of agency, ‘make’ our own choices, and feel as if we are in control of our decisions.

• Compatibilists, such as Thomas Aquinas, believe in both free will and determinism, arguing for their logical compatibility.

• Other schools of thought argue against the possibility of free will. Causal determinism states that all of our ‘decisions’ react to previous decisions, and therefore are not free as they are tied to determining factors.

• Many contemporary psychologists and social scientists believe that whether or not free will exists, we must all be held as morally responsible for our actions in order for society to function successfully.

Do we have sex for procreation or recreation?

• From a biological perspective, many believe that the primary objective of sexual intercourse is reproduction because this is a possible and significant outcome.

• Many religions value sex highly partly because of its vital role in procreation. For example, many Jewish and Christian scholars interpret Genesis 9:7 “Go forth and multiply” as an order from God to procreate, emphasising this as the most important part of sex.

• However, others argue that if the primary objective of sex was reproduction, every occurrence of sexual intercourse would result in pregnancy. For pre-menopausal female bodies, the ovulation period (during which time sex can potentially result in pregnancy) lasts for only one day on average per month, meaning that sex outside of this period will not result in pregnancy. Therefore, if someone were to have sex everyday for a month, there is a lower than 1 in 30 chance of it resulting in pregnancy (as the chance of getting pregnant during ovulation is then only 30%). Many argue that because female bodies are not biologically designed to reproduce every time they have sex, that reproduction is therefore not the main function of sex.

• Many might interpret this statement from a personal perspective: everyone has different reasons for having sex. Many argue that the primary purpose of sex is to bond and create intimacy with your sexual partner. Others argue that the main objective of sex is to feel pleasure.

• Not all kinds of sex have the potential to lead to reproduction, such as sex between same-sex partners or non-penetrative sex. Many may argue therefore that reproduction cannot be the main objective of sex, at least in these cases.

Is Critical Race Theory anti-racist or racially prejudiced?

• Critical Race Theory is an academic framework that guides how we think about race, especially in the context of legal systems and power. It understands race as a social construct, acknowledges that racism continues to be a modern problem, and recognises that racism is systemic. The theory was founded by American civil-rights activists and lawyers in the 1970s.

• Many believe that the study of Critical Race Theory is necessary to create an anti-racist society, which would benefit everyone. They praise its focus on institutional racism as the stem of the oppression of black people and individual racist attacks, and believe that addressing this is the first step in moving towards a society without racial-inequality.

• However, many argue that Critical Race Theory is itself racially prejudiced. In the USA in 2021, many protested against the teaching of Critical Race Theory in schools. Because the theory starts with the concept that black people are oppressed, by proxy, it positions white people as oppressors. Some criticise this claim, and argue that it is unfairly biased against white people.

The pros and cons of capitalism

• Capitalism is one of the two main economic systems in modern society (the other being socialism). It can be thought of as “economic individualism”. In this system, private organisations or individuals own trade and industry, and strive to make a profit from a motive of self-interest. Adam Smith explains that in this society “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest”.

• Many believe that capitalism benefits society. Some argue that its model of gain and loss incentivises people to work harder, leading to more innovations and advancements. Some suggest that capitalism promotes freedom of choice in ways that socialism by its nature cannot. Others argue that free-market transactions, inherent to capitalist societies, contribute to a healthy economy.

• Others argue that capitalism is bad for society. Many believe that the self-interest it promotes is immoral, and leads to dramatic wealth inequality. Some argue that capitalism is built upon the concept that everybody can work, and therefore excludes people who can’t work (perhaps due to illness or a disability) – these people have no choice but to live under limited government benefits or in poverty. Many also link climate change to capitalism, as capitalism encourages mass production and consumption, which can damage our environment.

Too high, too little, or just right?

• Tax is determined by how much money you earn or save – the rich are taxed at a higher rate than the poor. The money from taxes is used to benefit society and provide public services, such as education, healthcare, housing, museums, libraries, and road maintenance.

• Some people believe that the rich are taxed too highly. In the UK, the highest rate of tax is 60% - which means that 60% of personal income is deducted and paid to the government. Some people believe that this rate is unfair, as it stands at over half of an individual’s earnings, perhaps disregarding their hard work for it.

• Some argue that the rich are taxed a just amount. In the USA, reports found that the taxes from the highest earning 1% of taxpayers made up almost 40% of all income taxes. In contrast, the taxes from the lowest earning 50% made up only 2% of income taxes.

• Others believe that the rich should be taxed at a higher rate as they argue that, even with heavy taxes, the super-rich still have significantly more money than is possible for one person to need. Many have speculated that certain billionaires in the USA have actually paid a very low rate of tax, which they believe is unjust.

Should we be forcibly or morally obligated to pay tax?

• Taxation is the term for how a government imposes tax, a compulsory monetary charge, upon its subjects. In the UK, the amount of income tax is determined by your salary bracket. This money funds government administration and public services.

• Some people disagree with the premise of taxation and argue that it is theft because it is compulsory - you cannot choose to opt out of paying tax. Income tax is taken straight out of your earnings, and therefore some people aren’t even aware that they are paying it. Many resent paying tax and therefore do not consent to it – they argue that their money is forcibly taken away from them, which fits a definition of theft.

• Others argue that taxation is not theft as money is not actually private property, but a component of being part of society. Many believe that paying tax is an investment that we all benefit from as it serves a public good: taxpayers’ money funds education, healthcare, housing, museums, libraries, and road maintenance, among many others. Many believe that it is our duty to pay tax, in order to contribute to society.

Is equity the solution to societal imbalance or a form of racism?

• Equality, in the context of social justice, is the principle that everybody deserves the same treatment and opportunities. It is generally celebrated as a societal ideal, and many believe that we should all strive for equality. Many acknowledge that our world is not equal, and certain groups of people are discriminated against or less privileged than others, often for reasons of race, class, wealth, gender, or sexual orientation.

• The concept of equity follows from this acknowledgement and aims to level out societal imbalance by giving less privileged groups more resources or opportunities than more privileged groups. Equity stems from ideas of justice. This is explained very clearly using images in an article from Cultural Organizing.

• Many argue that in order to make society more equal, practicing equity is more important than practicing equality. Unlike equality, equity takes systemic inequality into account which many believe is vital in striving towards a world without societal bias or imbalance.

• Others argue that equity is unfair, as it prioritises certain people over others. Some also suggest that equity reduces people down to their race or ethnicity – some go as far as to say that this treatment of specific racial groups, even with anti-racist intentions, is a form of racism itself and is therefore damaging.

Does Affirmative Action help to combat systemic racism or discriminate against ineligible candidates?

• Affirmative Action is a policy used in education admissions and job recruitment that aims to increase opportunities for groups of people who have been underrepresented in these areas or industries. It is a scheme to counteract society’s bias and systemic discrimination of certain groups of people, for matters of race, gender, disability, and religion, among many other reasons. Affirmative Action was first developed in the USA to carry out the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and continues to be used especially to ensure that People of Colour are given educational and employment opportunities.

• Many people believe that Affirmative Action is a necessary policy that works to create an anti-racist society. Equity is vital to this concept: the idea that the world as it exists is not equal, and in order to reach equality, certain groups of people need special measures.

• However, some people believe that Affirmative Action is unequal because it prioritises candidates for no other reason than their race (or other underrepresented characteristic). Some may argue that Affirmative Action is racist towards People of Colour, because they understand it to reduce their skills and achievements down to their skin colour.

• Others argue that Affirmative Action is racially prejudiced against white people because such schemes may disregard white candidates merely because of their skin colour. However, many disagree and argue that due to the systemic nature of racism, white people cannot experience racism.

A ticking bomb or effective deterrent?

• Nuclear weapons are regarded as the most dangerous type of all weapons, due to the scale of their impact and long-term consequences. One nuclear bomb has the power to destroy an entire city in one explosion, killing millions. Once detonated, nuclear warfare releases ionizing radiation that causes diseases and genetic damage to people exposed to it, and harms the surrounding environment. This radiation can spread over great distances, affecting many.

• Due to the catastrophic scale of destruction that nuclear weapons are capable of causing, many believe that the existence of nuclear weapons makes the world significantly more dangerous. Countries without their own nuclear weapons feel threatened by countries who do have nuclear weapons, and so begin to invest in creating their own. Now that nuclear weapons are becoming more widely available, it is not impossible that terrorist groups might be able to access them and cause great harm to the world.

• Others argue that nuclear weapons do make the world a safer place, and reason that since the introduction of nuclear weapons, there have been more periods of peace and fewer major wars. During the Cold War, it was the existence of nuclear weapons that prevented a “hot war” with physical fighting: they created a stalemate between the Soviet Union and the Western Block, which averted many deaths.

Is acknowledging white privilege essential to practicing anti-racism?

• The colloquial phrase “check your privilege” is widely used across social media towards and by allies of anti-racism – it is often used specifically to refer to the concept of White Privilege. White Privilege is the idea that in spite of other potential disadvantages (such as social class, money, gender identity, disability, religion, and nationality), white people benefit from being white due to the systemic racism inherent in our society. Checking your privilege is a reminder to reassess an opinion or belief from an anti-racist perspective.

• Many believe that we each have a responsibility to acknowledge our own privileges in order to recognise the ways in which society is biased against certain groups of people and eliminate our own unconscious bias.

• Others argue against the idea of privilege, believing that this rhetoric vilifies white allies unnecessarily. Some believe that people overuse the phrase to simply shut down conversations where opinions differ, instead of explaining their own point of view (or even accepting that others think differently).

Does freedom of speech include hate speech?

• In this context, the right to offend refers to the right to hold opinions or beliefs that some find offensive, and to a lesser extent, the right to verbally abuse someone (which, though arguably subjective, is a crime in most places). It is a hotly-debated topic that concerns freedom of speech and hate speech.

• Many believe that you do have the right to offend others, as you have the right to hold and express your own opinions and beliefs. This is a form of freedom of speech which, particularly in democratic societies, is considered an essential human right.

• However, many others argue that freedom of speech is not an “absolute right” as it has and should have limitations in place to prevent the harm of others. Defamatory language, blackmail, and speech used to incite hatred are already punishable by law in most countries, whilst “offensive” speech is not; many argue that it is subjective whether speech counts as defamatory or offensive. Several recent court cases have ruled against banning offensive speech aimed at LGBTQ people - many disagree with these rulings and argue that they threaten the safety and wellbeing of LGBTQ people.

Who should pay for students to go to university?

• This debate is centred around whether university courses should be paid for by the government (or more precisely, by taxpayers) or by the individual student.

• Some argue that university should be free because the fees gatekeep poorer students, who are already unrepresented in academic settings. They argue that university should be free so that it is more accessible for everyone who wants to pursue higher education. A university degree is beneficial for many; studies have shown that university graduates earn more on average than non-graduates.

• Others claim that university has become a commodity, and students merely consumers of it. They argue that this has dissolved the value of academia. Many now view university fees as simply paying for a qualification, and complain that contact hours and teaching materials vary significantly by course, but all students must pay the same amount.

• Others argue that now too many people attend university, when their career goals or lifestyles might be more suited to other further education options. They argue that this is the cause for increasing drop-out rates; students feel as if they can apply for and drop-out of university whenever because there are no costs or consequences.

Is health a human right?

• Some people believe that health care is a human right and therefore everyone should be able to access health care, regardless of their income. They argue that private health services (where patients must pay out of pocket) discriminate against those in poverty as they are often unable to pay medical fees and end up unable to access health care.

• Others disagree as they believe that every individual has a responsibility to look after their own health. They argue that free health care removes an incentive for living healthily.
Others argue that free healthcare is of a lower quality than personally funded health care.

• Some argue that health care can never be free – people in medical professions must earn a salary, medical supplies must be paid for, and hospitals must be maintained, among many other costs. ‘Free health care’ is generally used to refer to public health services, such as the NHS in the United Kingdom. These health services are not free, but funded by the money from taxpayers rather than from patients directly.

Anti-fascist hero or genocidal dictator?

• Winston Churchill (1874 – 1965) is best known for being the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1940 – 1945 and 1951 – 1955. He has historically been well-respected and celebrated for his leadership during the Second World War which ultimately won victory for the Allied Forces against the Nazis.

• Many consider Churchill’s first term at office to be heroic, due to his determined involvement in the war effort against fascism, and his strengths as a military strategist and public speaker.
British society has traditionally valued patriotism, strength, and nobility as signs of heroism; Churchill routinely appealed to and exhibited these qualities in his rhetoric, which effectively inspired the nation to partake in the war effort. As a young man Churchill served as a soldier for the United Kingdom, which many also cite as evidence of his heroism.

• However, many believe that Churchill’s other acts and beliefs counteract his positive influence in the war. Some argue that Churchill’s commitment to imperialism (which is now often considered unethical) and racist beliefs mean that he should not be celebrated as a hero. Many hold that he was responsible for the deaths of 3 million Indian people during the Bengal famine of 1943 by draining India’s resources for the British, and refusing to send aid. One Indian politician, Dr Shashi Tharoor, goes as far to name Churchill a ‘genocidal dictator’ due to his exploitation of India.

Is porn sex positive or destructive?

• Like many things related to sex, pornography has commonly been taboo in most places, cultures, and religions. Traditionally, arguments against porn have been centred around the ethics of selling sex. Producing and viewing pornography is currently banned or heavily censored in multiple countries, such as China, North Korea, Turkey, and Pakistan.

• Some people argue that pornography should be legal as a form of freedom of speech. They may argue that, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult and certain safety measures are taken, pornography is not harmful. Some believe that viewing pornography can be beneficial: it can help to reduce stigma around sex, make society more sex positive, and strengthen intimate relationships.

• In contrast, many believe that pornography is damaging for the actors involved, viewers, and society as a whole. Some think that the porn industry exploits vulnerable people, enabling sex trafficking and coercion. Many viewers suffer from porn addiction, which can be extremely damaging not only to one’s sex-life but to mental health and wellbeing. Pornography can also depict unrealistic and often unhealthy sexual encounters and promote misogynistic and sometimes violent attitudes towards women, which contribute to the way women are treated in society.

• Whether pornography is legal or illegal, it is still produced and consumed. Some argue that pornography should be legal because its legality protects and improves conditions for porn stars and sex workers.

Is gender a social construct or biologically inherent? It depends on how you define sex and gender

• Gender is a concept that we use to interpret who we and other people are. It is generally understood in terms of the feminine and masculine, but can also be interpreted as a spectrum between these two binaries. At birth, we are usually assigned a gender in correspondence to our biological sex.

• Many disagree as to whether gender is or is not merely a social construct. These differing views stem from opposing interpretations of sex and gender.

• Some people view these terms as synonyms to mean the combination of our physical characteristics, identities, and sociocultural roles in society. Proponents of this view may argue that gender is inherent because they understand it as a matter of biology and psychology.

• Others distinguish ‘sex’ as relating to our physical characteristics and ‘gender’ as relating to our identities and sociocultural roles in society. Proponents of this view may argue that gender is a social construct because its meaning is dependent on our interaction with society. Perceptions of what is masculine and feminine, including characteristics, societal roles, and behaviours, vary and change over time, throughout cultures and different places. Some believe that gender originates primarily from human desire to put things into categories.

Conflicting opinions about transgender people are founded upon conflicting interpretations of sex and gender

• At birth, we are usually assigned a gender in correspondence to our biological sex. Transgender people are those who identify with a different gender to that which they were assigned with at birth.

• This debate is built upon interpretations of sex and gender. These terms are often used interchangeably, but many distinguish ‘sex’ as relating to our physical characteristics and ‘gender’ as relating to our identities and sociocultural roles in society.

• Some people interpret ‘woman’ and ‘man’ as sex categories and believe that sex cannot be changed. These people may argue that “transgender women are not women and transgender men are not men” because transgender people are not born with the physical attributes usually assigned to the gender that they identify with.

• Many disagree and condemn this point of view as transphobic because they believe it invalidates the lived experiences of transgender people.

• Those who believe that "transgender women are women and transgender men are men" may interpret ‘woman’ and ‘man’ as gender categories and believe that gender is a fluid social construct. Such people may also understand sex outside of the male-female binary, citing the existence of intersex people to argue that sex itself is a spectrum. However, this opinion is primarily based upon the lived experiences of transgender people. Proponents argue that if someone feels like a woman they are a woman, and if someone feels like a man they are a man.

Why is there a gap between black and white IQ scores?

• The IQ test was invented by Alfred Binet in the early 20th century, in order to work out which of his students needed extra learning support.
Despite its altruistic origins, in the mid-20th century the IQ test was often used as a tool of scientific racism to promote and justify ideas of white supremacy and black inferiority. As ‘evidence’, they reported a measurable difference between the IQ scores of white people and black people. This gap persists today, which causes some to argue that IQ tests are racially biased against black people.

• Many link this disparity in IQ scores to education, and cultural and economic factors, rather than directly to race. Studies have shown that education has an ameliorating effect on IQ scores, with scores increasing over time. The systemic nature of racism means that people of certain races, such as black people, are less likely to have access to education, which may affect their IQ scores.

• Proponents also argue that IQ tests do not measure our inherent intelligence, but our grasp of literacy, mathematics, reasoning, lateral thinking and spatial insight. As the IQ test comes from a European background, some argue that it prioritises and measures against European ways of thinking, which is biased against people from other places and cultures who put emphasis on other areas of intelligence.

• As over the last 20 years the IQ score gap has narrowed, some argue that IQ tests no longer reveal a racial or cultural bias. Many believe that IQ tests are an efficient way to approximate someone’s general intelligence, no matter their race.

Is race social construct or biological fact?

• The widely used phrase ‘race is a construct’ refers to the theory that race is a social construct. This argument is often included in debates about the causes of racism, which is chiefly a societal issue.

• The position that race is a social construct is founded on the principle that race is not a biological category but a social category, based more upon language, geography, politics, and economic factors than skin colour. It is a classification system. Proponents argue that race is not ‘real’ because it is subjective; they cite cases where a person’s ethnicity is not physically obvious, causing others to misinterpret their race.

• Some scientists disagree with this idea, arguing that race is determined by biological factors. Some group races not by skin colour, such as black and white, but by geographical location – one science writer splits the three primary races into Africans, East Asians, and Caucasians. Scientists have found certain genetic differences between people from different geographical locations; therefore, those who understand race as dictated by geography may argue that race is a biological fact.

Nature versus nurture

• The ‘nature versus nurture’ debate questions how we develop our different traits - whether they are predestined by our genetic make-up, or influenced by our interactions with others and our surrounding environments. This principle is often applied in discussions of how humans form personality, sense of humour, ethics, politics, gender, talents, skills, likes and dislikes.

• Proponents of the nature argument contend that we are born the way we are; that our genes dictate who we will grow into, including our interests, skillsets, and temperament. This is a biological approach which explains human behaviour by our flux of hormones and neuro-chemical reactions.

• Proponents of the nurture school of thought argue that we are conditioned and influenced by external factors as we develop, such as our environments and experiences. Our personalities are not pre-wired, but are malleable and form over time.

• Others regard nature and nurture as equally important factors in our development. They believe that the combination of our genes and experiences make us who we are.

Robots might take our jobs – or make our jobs better

• AI (Artificial Intelligence) is intelligence exhibited by machines and robots rather than by humans or other animals. The term is commonly used to refer to the machines themselves, which are programmed to reason, problem-solve, plan, and learn.

• The study of AI has advanced drastically since it was first invented in the 1950s, developing increasingly complex and capable machines which have already changed our world significantly. Due to these advancements, many speculate about the future of AI and its impact on the future of humanity.

• Some believe that as AI becomes more sophisticated it will replace humans in the workplace; they fear that job roles traditionally filled by humans will be replaced with intelligent machines, causing mass unemployment and reducing humanity’s sense of purpose. In several situations, such as in AI chess games, AI has already superseded human intelligence – some argue that this displaces the importance of our own intelligence.

• Others believe that AI will not replace human intelligence and labour, but augment it. They argue that humans create and program AI chiefly to fulfil menial tasks so that humans are freed up to do more challenging, interesting, or challenging work. Such people believe that as AI develops, human intelligence develops.

TL;DR: Everyone loves Shakespeare, and Shakespeare loved a poo joke

• Toilet humour is unifying. Grounded in human bodily functions, every human has experienced going to the toilet, and therefore every human can find toilet humour relatable. Fart jokes transcend cultural or linguistic differences – they don’t need translating.

• Scatological humour has been well-used as a literary device by many celebrated writers and artists. Shakespeare’s plays are littered with dirty jokes; Titian’s painting of Bacchus and Ariadne hides multiple visual innuendoes; James Joyce’s works are filled with flatulent onomatopoeia. These works are considered ‘high art’ and have received continual popularity despite of, or perhaps owing to, their prominence of poo jokes.

TL;DR: If you can justify the violence of war, you can justify the violence of rioting

Rioting is a form of civil disorder: in a riot, a disorganised crowd of people act violently against property and/or persons in public, often in reaction against their governance or political authority. Because of its violent propensities, rioting is frequently condemned from legal and ethical perspectives.

However, many people who condemn the violence of rioting, justify the violence of war. Society glorifies soldiers for their violence; we can reason and understand that everyday laws and moral standards against violence can be suspended for the purpose of protecting or achieving a ‘greater good’. Therefore, I pose that our stigma against rioting is not rooted in its violence, but in its association with dissent.
There are two main differences between the violence of wars and the violence of riots: organisation and power. Firstly, military violence is organised, tactical and carefully calculated, whereas riot violence is erratic and unplanned. Secondly, wars are waged and orchestrated by the powerful, whereas rioting is for those without power. Riots are for those who have no voice without violence – Martin Luther King Jr. famously said that “a riot is the language of the unheard”.

Riots have been successfully used as a form of protest by many political and human rights movements to achieve positive social change, such as the Stonewall Riots of 1969 which were essential for the advancement of LGBTQ+ rights. Authorities cannot ignore riots in the same way that they might peaceful protests, and so they are often effective in getting a response and solution from those in power. Even Nelson Mandela, known for his peaceful approach in his fight to end apartheid in South Africa, recognised that “Force is the only language the imperialists can hear, and no country became free without some sort of violence.". From his own experience, he argues that violence is the only form of protest that induces a reaction from oppressive powers.

If we can justify the violence of war because it serves to improve the world in the long-term, we can justify the violence of rioting for the same reasons.

TL;DR: Korean physiognomy claims that cosmetic surgery can make you luckier, healthier, and happier - everyone should be entitled to this, no matter which facial features you are born with

Many argue that cosmetic surgery should not be covered by health insurance because purely aesthetic alterations have no impact on our health. However, practitioners of the ancient Korean study of physiognomy would disagree.

Physiognomy is the art of face-reading: believers associate an individual’s facial features with their destiny. This practice originated almost a thousand years ago, developing throughout the Goryeo and Chosun Dynasties. Physiognomists associate certain facial characteristics with prosperity, and others with misfortune. For example, in physiognomy high-bridged noses are desirable because they are thought to predict wealth.

In the present day, physiognomists are often consulted by Koreans seeking cosmetic surgery. They believe that by changing their face, they can change their future. The professor of psychology, Eunkook Suh, explains that this belief stems from an “incremental theory” that many people in Asian societies (including South Korean society) live by; the theory that we all have an uncapped potential to change ourselves and our lives through hard work. Followers of physiognomy therefore understand cosmetic surgery as a proactive way to improve your life, choosing features associated with wealth, prosperity, love, and even good health. This has implications in professional Korean society, where appearances are considered very important – most job applications require a photograph, and some recruiters even use physiognomy to choose between candidates.

It is unfair that some people are less fortunate than others. It is also unfair that some people are less good looking than others. For believers of physiognomy, there is a solution to this inequality. If cosmetic surgery were covered by health insurance, everyone with less lucky facial features would be able to change their luck, amounting to the same level of fortune as those born naturally with it. Some could argue that this is equity.

TL;DR: Some think that multiculturalism sustains colonial power dynamics

Multiculturalism is of course in many ways beneficial to society. Instead of assimilating and becoming homogenous with the dominant culture, minority ethnic groups maintain their identity, distinguishing values and practices; in turn, the blissful coexistence of different cultures contributes to the creation of a flourishing, diverse, tolerant, and innovative society for everyone.

Despite the positive logistical outcomes of multiculturalism, some postcolonial academics have theorised the potentially harmful side of multiculturalism: they argue that, at worst, multiculturalism is a continuation of colonial power structures. Glen Coulthard points out that in multiculturalism, the relationship between minority cultures and the dominant culture is not mutually powerful or dependent, stating that “the master – that is, the colonial state and state society – does not require recognition from the previously self-determining communities upon which its territorial, economic, and social infrastructure is constituted”. Coulthard uses the Canadian and Australian government’s treatment of indigenous people as examples of this – the government (the dominant culture) is not expected to seek acceptance or tolerance from the indigenous people (the minority culture). Some see this unequal power dynamic between dominant and minority cultures as the dregs of colonialism, which is now agreed to have been damaging to society, due to its violent and oppressive principles and methods.

TL;DR: Love Actually has not aged well

The best Christmas movie is a movie that can stand the test of time; that is ageless, eternally relevant, and infinitely rewatchable. It should conjure up fuzzy feelings of nostalgia and Christmases past, whilst continuing to excite and bring joy to viewers.

The problem with Love Actually is that it has become outdated. Early noughties humour doesn’t quite have the same appeal as it once did, and some people accuse the film of being offensive, especially in its treatment of women.

Love Actually has a bad record when it comes to casual misogyny. Male characters repeatedly objectify female characters, making sexual and fatphobic jokes. In pretty much every romantic couple, the woman is passive. The Prime Minister’s tea lady, Natalie, loses her job and is ostracised by the Prime Minister for being sexually harassed at work. And last but not least, one man’s stalking of a female character (Mark and Juliet) is romanticised as a grand gesture. Even one of the film’s star’s, Lulu Popplewell (First Lobster), has spoken out against the film for its sexist themes.

For many a modern audience, these reasons make Love Actually difficult to watch, disrupting their enjoyment of the film. Love Actually therefore does not have that timeless quality essential to the best Christmas films.

TL;DR: We put our pets down, why don’t we give people the same dignity?

Most arguments against the practice of euthanasia are built upon principles of morality. Some believe that it is wrong to play God by purposefully ending life, and others worry about the potential for a slippery slope, where the vulnerable are taken advantage of and euthanised without their true consent.

However, we contradict these ethics when it comes to our pets. In the case of animals, most people agree that it is actually a kindness to euthanise the sick and uncurable, in order to end their suffering. We accept that putting down an ill dog is the right thing to do, even though the dog cannot give its consent to die. It seems unfair to prevent human beings from actively choosing a humane assisted death when we allow dogs and cats this dignity all the time.

TL;DR: Cancel Culture doesn’t actually work

The term ‘Cancel Culture’ implies a finality, and the arguments here labelling it counterproductive take this as a foundational principle. They critique that once a public figure is ‘cancelled’, the general public revoke their right to rehabilitation, explanation, or forgiveness, which seems harsh and potentially unethical.

However, I would argue that Cancel Culture is not final, and therefore doesn’t really work as a manner of punishing or removing public figures from the spotlight for immoral statements or actions. Those who get cancelled rarely remain so. For example, over the past few years, JK Rowling has repeatedly been cancelled for her transphobic tweets. The fact that this cancellation has been repeated by Twitter uses and the media on several occasions (in different years) suggests that ‘being cancelled’ is not a finite state. Despite being cancelled, JK Rowling continues to make money and her work is continually supported by fans of her books, even by those who have cancelled her. She is too rich, famous, and her works too popular, for her to stay cancelled.

Our Cancel Culture is a Cancel Cycle: internet users surface the problematic opinions or past actions of celebrities; Twitter and the press spend a few weeks circulating this information and claiming that celebrity is ‘cancelled’; the celebrity either addresses this in a public statement or keeps their head down; and in a matter of months they have a new book deal, or are cast in another blockbuster movie, and can go back to revelling in their success. The cycle repeats. Time and time again, the same public figures are called out for the same antics, but remain in the limelight and with minimal long-term repercussions, making Cancel Culture not only counterproductive, but ineffectual.

TL;DR: Easy, breezy, lemon squeezy

• A dress is an outfit in one. You don’t need to worry about coordination – just pop it on and voilá, you are dressed! This can save a lot of time and fuss in a busy lifestyle.

• Dresses are the comfiest item of clothing. A floaty skirt hides a multitude of sins and doesn’t restrict your body like trousers do.

• They come in all kinds of styles, prints, colours and shapes. There is a dress to suit every occasion, body type, and personality.

• Everyone looks great in dresses! From Lizzo to Harry Styles, fashionistas continue to flaunt the inexhaustible potential of a good dress.

TL;DR: Evil depends on free will, which doesn’t exist

• Neuroscientists correlate the metaphysical concept of evil to certain types of physical brain activity that causes us to make decisions. They can map out and observe our choices, which seem to occur in the brain significantly before we become aware of making our decision. Philosophers and scientists have used this fact to argue against the idea of free will – our brains seem wired to make certain decisions, which suggests that our actions are predestined.

• If free will does not exist and we cannot act autonomously, it follows that we cannot commit evil. Evil is not simply a bad or harmful action, but an intention to carry out a bad or harmful action. If our intentions are predestined, and therefore not truly conscious, the concept of evil cannot exist.

TL;DR: Gender, as a social construct, moulds our brain development

Many have dispelled archaic claims of gendered brains because this principle has so often been used by misogynists to argue for man’s superiority over woman.

However, I would argue that there is some truth to the concept of gendered intelligence, because our concept of gender is innate and influences our perception of literally everything. Humans love categorization – it’s how we understand the world around us. Gender is a form of this categorization, a way of grouping and simplifying certain traits, roles, and behaviours, and our feelings around them – we perceive and label certain traits as masculine and others as feminine. Historically, gender has been understood as a binary, but we are now beginning to flesh out our ways of thinking about gender to better represent our lived experiences of it, understanding gender as a spectrum. To emphasise human preoccupation with gender, think of languages like French or Spanish – these languages assign a gender to every single noun. Even tables are gendered! La table!

Even intelligence falls prey to our obsession with gender, partly because our experiences mould our brain activity. This is referred to as brain plasticity: our brains create new connections between neurons as a result of our personal experiences, which over time, change the structure of the brain. Of course, everyone has unique experiences, but certain groups of people are more likely to have more similar experiences due to the way that society treats them. Society treats men, women, and non-binary people differently: we exist in separate subcultures with different rules and expectations for every gender. As children, when our brains are particularly malleable and adapt very quickly, we are given toys in accordance with our assigned gender: girls are often given dolls to care for, whilst boys are given construction machines and vehicles. Professor Gina Rippon explains that “Toys have a substantial impact on the development of children’s cognitive and social skills, their perception of self and their career aspirations”: in short, a male child given Lego is likely to develop better spatial training (used in science, engineering, and robotics) than a female child who is given a doll to play with.

It is a kind of “self-fulfilling prophecy” that intelligence is gendered; our brains have the capacity to develop brain activity associated with any gender. However, I would argue that our gendered experiences in our current society affect our brains, and therefore we cannot escape some degree of gendered intelligence.

TL;DR: Frankenstein's monster and zombies are both slave metaphors

Generally speaking, the Halloween costume canon distinguishes Frankenstein’s monster from zombies. However, I suggest that the zombie myth and Mary Shelley’s literary monster, entering the Western imagination at roughly the same time, have an intertwining history: zombies influenced Mary Shelley’s depiction of her creature (and our own interpretations of it), just as Frankenstein’s monster has significantly contributed to our modern concept of the zombie.

The word zombie was coined by West Africans to describe the cadaver-like victims of Voodoo priests, who would poison their targets and force them to work in the fields. This myth travelled via slave ships to the West Indian island of Haiti and took root; the enslaved Haitians emphasised the power dynamic already inherent in zombies, and this folklore came to express their own feelings of a “social death” in enslavement. Finally, zombie folklore arrived in England in the late 18th century in Bryan Edward’s History of the British West Indies (1793). We know that Shelley owned this book and read it at least twice in the years leading up to her writing Frankenstein. Of course, we can only speculate whether the zombie myth directly influenced her monster, but I would argue with certainty that it has maintained an indirect influence ever since.

Frankenstein’s monster and zombies both begin as an expression of slavery. The zombie myth is born as a kind of slave narrative, and many critics argue that Shelley writes Frankenstein from an abolitionist perspective. Shelley adopts certain tropes of slave literature: using orientalist language to racialise the creature, establishing a master-slave relationship between Frankenstein and his monster, using acquisition of literacy as a metaphor for emancipation, and fire as a symbol of revolt (which was a major tactic used by slaves in the Haitian revolution). The middle section of the novel is written from the creature’s perspective, giving him a voice and humanising him for the reader, who gradually overcomes their initial prejudice and sympathises with him. Replace ‘creature’ with ‘slave’ in this preposition, and Frankenstein is clearly a text about slavery, written to inspire abolition in an English audience.

Zombies and Frankenstein’s monster continue to intertwine throughout their adaptation and evolution. In every reimagining, zombies and Frankenstein’s monster become more and more similar. As I have established, they begin, on a basic level, as reanimated corpses with a background of slavery. In the 1930s, when horror films became zeitgeist, zombies and Frankenstein’s monster were interpreted in much the same way, in Victor Halperin’s White Zombie (1932) and James Whale’s Frankenstein (1931). The posters for each film are almost identical, emphasising the conjoined nature of both concepts at this point. In both films, the creatures are no longer presented as victims, but as villainous and threatening monsters. Significantly, they are also now presented as speechless; in the case of Frankenstein’s creature, reduced from persuasive prose to bestial grunts, emphasising his monstrosity and removing all pathos from the audience. I would argue that Frankenstein’s monster is a zombie primarily because modern pop culture treats him as one; we cannot interpret them separately because they have such a shared evolution, with the same roots in slavery and Western fear of the Other.

TL;DR: Jesus was a ghost

• Jesus was not an alien – he was actually a ghost. Whilst most scholars stress the physical nature of Jesus’s resurrection, some speculate his ghoul-like tendencies. Deborah Thompson Prince examines the gospel of Luke’s account of Jesus’s resurrection, and finds many textual similarities and influences from contemporary Greco-Roman literature about post-mortem disembodied spirits.

• Post-resurrection, Jesus seemingly could walk through walls! In John 20:19, ‘On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!”’. The writer of this gospel emphasises the fact that the doors were locked, which implies that Jesus somehow passes through them. This seems at odds with arguments for his physical body, implying some kind of supernatural disembodiment, just as in ghost lore.

• There is other Biblical textual evidence of Jesus appearing and vanishing from nowhere, in the manner of a ghostly apparition. In Luke 24:36, Jesus appears very suddenly, startling his disciples: ‘While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”’ Likewise, in Luke 24:31, Jesus vanishes in front of the disciples: ‘Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight’.

• In both Matthew (14:26) and Luke (24:37), the disciples see Jesus and think that he is a ghost. Both times, Jesus immediately tries to shut this down; in Luke, he tries to disprove this by showing the disciples his crucifixion wounds, getting them to touch his physical body, and eating food in front of them. He says to them ‘Look at my hands and my feet. It is myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have’. Now, doesn’t that sound exactly like something a ghost would say?

TL;DR: Buddhists believe that ceasing existence is the only way to cease suffering

Theravada Buddhists believe that suffering is the nature of existence and that it is cyclical. To free yourself from suffering, you must free yourself from existence. This process is explained in the Buddha’s teachings of The Four Noble Truths:

1. Dukkha Everyone suffers. Suffering is part of living in this world. Because Buddhists believe in reincarnation, they believe that suffering is cyclical – you can come up with short term solutions to reduce suffering, but suffering will always return. They name this endless cycle of existence samsara and the greatest spiritual goal in Buddhism is to escape it.

2. Samudaya All suffering has a causation. You need to understand where suffering stems from in order to end it. The Buddha taught that most suffering stems from desire (tanha), which is inexhaustible and fuels dissatisfaction, jealousy, and greed.

3. Nirodha Suffering can end. By ending suffering, you can escape samsara and reach enlightenment in life. After death, this becomes a final liberation from existence, referred to as Nirvana.

4. Magga You can end suffering. In order to end suffering, you need to rid yourself of all desires. This is possible by following the Buddha’s teachings, such as the Middle Way, and through meditation.

TL;DR: Corporal punishment teaches children that violence is an acceptable way to solve disputes

• Corporal punishment has historically been used to punish children for ‘bad’ or impolite behaviour. Those in favour of corporal punishment reason that by hurting a child for being disobedient, the child will in future want to avoid this pain and cease misbehaving.
• The psychologist Elizabeth Thompson Gershoff describes the limitations of corporal punishment: “There is general consensus that corporal punishment is effective in getting children to comply immediately while at the same time there is caution from child abuse researchers that corporal punishment by its nature can escalate into physical maltreatment”.
• Many argue that corporal punishment is a form of abuse, and therefore unethical. This would make it an unfitting way to teach children ethics – the very purpose of punishment - as it legitimises violence against others. Physical punishment can culminate in serious physical injuries, and studies have shown that it can cause mental health problems, feelings of fear and resentment towards parents, and a hindrance to cognitive development.
• Corporal punishment sets a bad example for children, who are routinely taught that it is wrong to hurt others. One study found that children of parents who used physical punishment were more likely to react with violence and aggression during disputes with other children. Many believe that children who are corporally punished grow up to be more aggressive adults.

TL;DR: Sun, sand, and sea can be bad for our health

• Sand is disgusting. It’s abrasive, itchy, and it gets absolutely everywhere. Not only a sensory nightmare, studies also suggest that sand threaten a hygiene risk. Scientists in Hawaii have found that sand can become contaminated with fecal bacteria caused by sewage spills in the ocean. The microbes and bacteria from these spills get trapped in sand, and survive far longer than those in water, posing health risks for unsuspecting sunbathers. Not only is sand a likely vehicle for poo, some sand is poo. The idolised white sand beaches found along the coastlines of the Caribbean and Hawaii are actually composed of parrotfish excretion. So maybe think again before building that sandcastle!

• Many people go to beaches to sunbathe. There are many health benefits of sunbathing – most notably, when exposed to sunlight, our bodies transform cholesterol into vitamin D, a vital vitamin that keeps our bones strong. However, without adequate protection (in the form of SPF) sunlight can damage our skin cells, leading to diseases like melonama that can ultimately cause skin cancer. At the beach, sunbathers spend multiple hours in the sun, often without sufficient SPF for the sake of developing an impressive tan. A public health case study of a Belgian beach found that only 42.2% of participants applied an SPF of 15 or higher before or during their day at the beach, and 22.8% of all participants did not use any sun-preventative measures at all.

• Many coastlines are plagued by smacks* of jellyfish. One study estimates that 150 million people are stung by jellyfish each year. Jellyfish stings are always painful, and some are even deadly! Certain species of box jellyfish are lethal to humans, and can stop a human heart from beating within five minutes of entering the bloodstream. In order to prevent the multiple jellyfish-related deaths that they cause each year, Angel Yanagihara is testing their venom, hoping to find an antidote.

*even the collective noun for jellyfish sounds painful!

TW Sexual violence

TL;DR: Preventing transgender people from using their preferred bathrooms puts them at risk of harm

The most prevalent argument against transgender people using the bathrooms of their choice claims that this would put more cisgender women at risk of sexual violence. Such opponents fear that this ruling could enable cisgender, heterosexual male predators to ‘disguise’ themselves as transgender women in order to sexually assault women in this confined space. This speculation has been found unwarranted: the Equality Federation records no increase in this behaviour in places with LGBTQ+ anti-discrimination laws in place (where transgender people are officially allowed to use whichever bathroom they feel most comfortable in).

Instead, transgender people are put at risk of sexual violence by not being allowed to use the bathrooms of their reassigned gender. Sadly, nearly half of transgender men and women experience sexual assault in their lifetime. The 2015 US Transgender survey found that 47% of respondents had experienced sexual assault in their lifetime, with higher figures for trans POC. The activist Christine Burns argues that "It's clearly not safe to require somebody who presents as a woman to go into a men's toilet. The evidence is, from the cases that have happened, is that real assault takes place, real people get hurt”. As a society, we should ensure that transgender people can choose which bathroom they use in order to protect them from harm.

TL;DR: White people wearing dreadlocks is a form of cultural appropriation

Hair is important. It has come to mean a lot more culturally than just a protein filament that grows out of our heads. We use our hair to express and beautify ourselves, but also to engage with our own culture: certain hairstyles are often associated with specific festivals, religious rituals, and even resistance movements. Hair is also a part of race, and different hair colours, textures, and styles have historically garnered more praise or stigma than others.

Dreadlocks do not belong to a single culture. This hairstyle, which involves the matting of hair into locks, is found throughout history, geography, and culture. In Egypt, archaeologists have found mummies with dreadlocks still attached to their skulls. The first reference to dreadlocks in writing occurs around 1500BC in the Vedic scriptures, holy Hindu texts. The Hindu god Shiva is depicted with dreadlocks, which he used to catch the goddess Ganga (who became the river Ganges) when she fell to Earth. Religious figures in many cultures wear (or wore) their hair in dreadlocks to symbolise a rejection of the material world: such as sadhus in India, priests of Akomfo in Ghana, and Aztec priests in Mexico. In many parts of Africa, dreadlocks hairstyles were instead reserved primarily for warriors, as a symbol of their strength.

Some historians believe that some ancient Europeans wore their hair in dreadlocks, with reference to certain parts of Greece and the Vikings, but to a lesser extent than the rest of the world.

In the 20th Century, dreadlocks attained new meaning with the formation of the Rastafari movement by Haile Selassie and Marcus Garvey. This religion evolved as a form of Pan-Africanism, preaching black empowerment and unity and reinterpreting the Bible through a contemporary lens of racial oppression. They wore dreadlocks to symbolise Jesus as ‘the Lion of Judah’ (comparing their dreads to a lion’s mane), and also as a way to honour and emphasise their African heritage. The Rastafarian singer/songwriter Bob Marley blasted Rastafarianism into mainstream culture in the 1970s, and accordingly, dreadlocks became a very fashionable hairstyle. Dreadlocks are now more associated with Rastafarianism than any other culture, and therefore have also become a symbol of black resistance against oppression.

Dreadlocks have become inherently tied to ideas of race and resistance. Many argue that white people should not wear their hair in dreadlocks, because it is a form of cultural appropriation. Cultural appropriation is “when a tradition, such as clothing or a hairstyle, is taken from a culture and used in a different way”. The meaning or significance is discarded, which disrespects the culture in question. Cultural appropriation is usually enacted by a dominant culture over a historically colonised culture, which creates an unequal power relationship: cultural appropriation can be seen as a form of neocolonialism. As historically white cultures have not incorporated dreadlocks (or at least not to the same extent as the majority non-white cultures that feature dreadlocks), white people adopt this hairstyle from cultures outside of their own. Most white people with dreadlocks wear them for aesthetic or anti-establishment rather than religious or cultural reasons, and therefore ignore or de-centre the long and complex race-centred history of dreadlocks. Kyle Ringsuccinctly explains that despite white protestations that ancient white cultures might have had dreadlocks, “the modern-day wearing of dreadlocks by white people is unconnected to their own history and instead inspired by ours”.

What’s more, black people are routinely discriminated against in education and the workplace because of their hair texture and hairstyles. The Nigerian writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie boldly proclaims that “hair is political”. She argues that due to the negative assumptions attached to natural black hair, “If Michelle Obama had dreadlocks or an Afro or cornrows…Barack Obama would not have won”. Meanwhile, white celebrities such as Justin Bieber are beginning to receive some backlash for the ‘cultural insensitivity’ of wearing dreadlocks, but still receive much praise and defence for this fashion statement. This signifies that it is not only culturally ignorant for white people to wear dreadlocks, but also harmful to the progression of an equal society.

TW: Murder

TL;DR: Her body has been found

On the 17th of July 1918 during the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks shot and killed the last Tsar of Russia, Nicolas II, his wife Tsarina Alexandra, and their 5 children: Tsarevitch Alexei, Olga, Tatiana, Maria, and Anastasia. The Bolsheviks attempted to cover up the murders, announcing that Nicholas II was dead but alleging that the Tsarina and children were safe. In truth, they had hidden their bodies in mass graves, and taken every measure to make them as unrecognisable as possible, pouring acid on them and setting them on fire.

The public quickly caught on and speculated that the whole family had been killed, but rumours of a sole survivor also began to capture interest. Anastasia’s was not the only survival to be rumoured; survival legends sprang up about her father, Nicolas II, sister, Maria, brother, Tsarevitch Alexei, and their healer and friend, Rasputin. However, Anastasia’s survival gained especial traction and hysteria when in 1922 a German woman called Anna Anderson claimed to be her.

These rumours of survival were particularly hard to disprove because no one had ever found Anastasia’s or her family’s bodies. The now fully established Soviet Union prevented proper investigation. In 1979, a geologist called Alexander Avdonin located the first of the mass graves, but had to wait until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 to exhume them safely. This dig found the remains of 5 Romanov bodies and 4 of their servants, but bodies of 2 of the children remained missing. This fuelled the ongoing speculation about Anastasia’s survival.

Finally, in 2007 archaeologists found the second grave: they uncovered 44 bone fragments and teeth from the site which lay 70 metres away from the first grave. From their forensic study, they could tell that the remains came from two young people, one male (therefore, Tsarevitch Alexei) and one female, who were likely aristocratic due to silver fillings found in some of their molars. Later that year, scientists took DNA samples from the remains and could finally conclude that they were Romanov children. We do not know whether Anastasia was buried in the first or second grave, as due to their similar ages and genetics, we cannot now distinguish her from her sister Maria.

Despite this “virtually irrefutable” evidence, people still claim that Anastasia survived. Whilst unscientific, this does illustrate the power of rumour and romance: whilst Anastasia is dead, her legend lives on.

TL;DR: Our bodies are programmed to laugh

• Babies have a sense of humour. Most babies can laugh when they are 3 or 4 months old, and a study by the University of Portsmouth has found that babies start using their facial expressions, voices, and body language to make adults laugh on purpose when they are as young as 7 or 8 months old. This suggests that either we are born with some kind of a sense of humour, or develop it exceedingly quickly at a very young age.

• Dr William Reville compares laughter to sneezing, as “an involuntary physiological response to a cognitive stimulus”. Our bodies are programmed to laugh: when we find something funny, our diaphragm contracts and our brain releases dopamine making us feel pleasure. Our sense of humour is not something that we can choose or be in control of, but is an innate biological reaction that helps us to communicate and form relationships with each other.

TL;DR: Snape is an anti-hero

As the most complex character in JK Rowling’s Harry Potter series, it is simplistic to interpret Snape as a clear-cut hero. In both literary and social interpretations, heroes are defined not only by their courage and strength, but by their altruism and compassion. Whilst Snape undeniably performs brave and morally admirable acts, protecting Harry and contributing to the eventual downfall of Voldemort, his intentions behind these acts do not stem from altruism or compassion.

In the chapter ‘The Prince’s Tale’ in The Deathly Hallows. Rowling reveals that Snape has dedicated his life to bring down Voldemort solely because of his unrequited love for Lily Potter and guilt about his involvement in her murder. Whether you consider this romantic or creepy, it remains an insular and self-centred motive for performing heroic acts: Snape does not act out of compassion for the people that his actions will benefit, but to avenge Lily.

Throughout the majority of the series, Snape is in fact set up as an antagonist. Harry is the main hero of the story and repeatedly positions himself against Snape, who is consistently unpleasant and aggressive towards him and the other students. Only in the very last chapters of the last book do we finally receive Snape’s perspective and understand the true complexity of his character and role as a double-agent.

Snape is therefore an anti hero – he is not simply ‘good’ as heroes (like Harry) are required to be, but also commits bad deeds and exhibits negative traits. Even his heroic actions are morally ambiguous – one of the most significant of which concerns killing Dumbledore at the end of The Half-Blood Prince. His role in the text is to add shade and complexity to Harry’s heroism, and to illustrate one of the central themes of the series: “We've all got both light and dark inside us. What matters is the part we choose to act on. That's who we really are.”.

TL;DR: Why do we care whether machines will become/ are conscious?

As we still don’t really understand what causes consciousness in humans, I don’t think that we can reasonably predict whether machines can become conscious yet.

However, this does not detract from our obsession with the idea of conscious machines and what their existence could mean for humanity. This obsession has a very long history that predates the machines themselves; Adrienne Mayor argues that these ideas are found in Ancient Greece, with poets Hesiod and Homer describing artificial intelligence over 2,500 years ago.

These thoughts continued to interest humans over the centuries, and peaked (as you might expect) during the Machine Age in the late 19th to mid-20th centuries, when scientists succeeded in developing more and more complex machines. During this time, writers, artists, and filmmakers made many works that explored artificial intelligence. From Bladerunner to Wall-E, stories about conscious machines continue to dominate film and literature.

Onesuch was the Czech writer Karel Čapek, who coined the term “robot” in his 1920 play, R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots). The humanoid machines in his play are manufactured to serve humans, but as they begin to feel and think for themselves, they revolt against their masters to let rise “the rule of the Robots”.

I believe that Čapek’s play unpicks our human interest in machine consciousness: we are simultaneously excited by the power possible in creating and replicating life, and terrified at the prospect that this power could be usurped. This also creates a morality problem. Čapek coined “robot” from the Czech word for “slave” or “forced labour”- if machines are conscious, then we are forcing them to labour for us every day.

TL;DR: Beauty is subjective – our perception of beauty is caused by our individual experiences

Our perception of beauty is deeply personal and formed far more by our experiences as an individual than by our genes. This has been proven in a recent study, where researchers tested the facial preference of 547 pairs of identical twins, 214 pairs of same-gender fraternal twins, and 660 nontwins. Each participant was shown 200 faces and had to rate their attractiveness out of 7. The researchers hypothesised that if genes are responsible for our perception of beauty and cause facial preference, identical twins would score the faces similarly, whereas if familial environment causes facial preference, fraternal twins would also score the faces similarly. The study found that most of the participants scored the faces differently from their twin, whether identical or fraternal, suggesting that neither genes nor familial environment cause our perception of beauty. They also found that participants often disagreed over which faces they considered attractive and not, demonstrating that beauty is highly subjective. Scientists therefore speculate that our perception of beauty is formed by our individual experiences and personal histories. Everyone has different and personal concepts and standards which we use to judge beauty – therefore, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

TL;DR: Human rights laws stem from colonialism, but their purpose is inherently anti-colonial

Historically, human rights laws originated with the coloniser. In the 16th century, European powers dominated parts of Asia, Africa, and America, by destroying existing infrastructures and placing themselves in power. Whilst this was an exploitative and often violent process, the colonisers justified this by framing colonisation as a ‘civilising’ mission. They believed that they were improving the lives of the colonised people by developing education systems, improving working conditions, and banning rituals or cultural practices that Europeans deemed ‘inhumane’ (such as sati, the practice of widow suicide in India).

Whilst colonisers were originally unconcerned with the rights of the colonised, seeing them as ‘less than’ human and suppressing their resistance, by the 18th century Europeans began to question the morality of colonialism. This pressure to reform colonial rule led to the primitive beginnings of human rights. These were effectively a cover-up for the continuing exploitation of colonised people and their land; under colonialism, people cannot have human rights because they are not free. However, the concept of human rights can be considered to solidify at this time.

Colonialism contradicts human rights. In his leaving speech as Secretary General of Amnesty International, Salil Shetty defines human rights as “the struggles of ordinary people to hold those in power to account – particularly power that is abused by those in government or corporations”. Human rights attack the principles of colonialism, which is an abuse of one country’s power over another’s. Shetty explains that “the essence of human rights and decolonisation are basically the same thing: the struggle for freedom against the abuse of power”. Historically human rights laws originated under colonialism as a way for the coloniser to justify colonisation, but they are anti-colonial by nature.

TL;DR: Science shows that plants can lose consciousness, therefore they must be conscious to begin with

In a study by K Yokawa et. al., scientists found that plants can seem to lose consciousness. In their experiment, they exposed pea plants, garden cress, and Venus Fly Traps to various anaesthetics used in human surgery, which rendered the plants unresponsive to usual stimulus. As these chemicals wore off over a few hours, the plants appeared to ‘wake up’, and once again became active.

Dr Frantisek Baluska compares the effects of anaesthetics on plants and humans; anaesthetics disrupt electrical activity across neurons in the human brain just as they disrupt the transmission of cellular material across plant membranes, which causes both to become unresponsive. If plants can lose consciousness, is therefore stands that they must have consciousness to begin with.

Of course, this bold statement ultimately comes down to how you define consciousness. These results do not suggest that plants have feelings or can philosophise about their own consciousness, but they do imply that plants have a kind of intelligence. As we still can’t explain what causes consciousness, I think that plants can be considered conscious to a degree.

TL;DR: The Problem of Evil

For thousands of years, philosophers have pondered ‘The Problem of Evil’: if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, how can evil exist in the world? These three qualities used to define God seem to deny the existence of evil, and as we know that evil exists through our experience in the world, some conclude that God cannot exist. The problem revolves around these three paradoxes that find evil and God incompatible:

• God does not know that evil exists and therefore cannot be omniscient.

• God cannot prevent evil from existing and therefore cannot be omnipotent.

• God wants evil to exist and therefore cannot be omnibenevolent.

The arguments for and against this opinion are partaking in the very long history of this philosophical debate – which is thought to have been started by the Ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus who lived from 342-271 BC! I don’t think that this problem is going to be solved anytime soon!

TW// Violence and Murder

TL;DR: The ethics of cannibalism depend on consent

Cannibalism is unusual, and therefore attains a certain amount of stigma just from being against normal social practice. Most humans naturally react with disgust to the idea of cannibalism – as we imagine our own bodies being eaten, we empathise with the victim and associate the act with pain and violence.

However, some could argue that we cannibalise ourselves every day. We eat bits of ourselves all the time: we bite our nails, suck blood from papercuts, and pick our noses. Technically these habits are a form of cannibalism, albeit it self-cannibalism, as they involve consuming the flesh of our own species. Whilst these habits are sometimes seen as impolite or socially unacceptable, they are not judged to be unethical.

The ethics of cannibalism therefore come down to consent. It is not unethical to chew your fingernails because you do so under your own autonomy and without impacting anyone else negatively. It is unethical to cannibalise other people for pleasure, like the serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, because his victims did not and could not consent to being murdered and eaten.

There have been several instances of people with a cannibalism fetish giving consent to be cannibalised for their own pleasure. However, as most people perceive this as a mental illness, it has been found that the victim could not actually give consent to be cannibalised, and therefore this is unethical.

There are also several sad cases of shipwreck and plane crash survivors eating the bodies of already-dead passengers in order to survive, such as the survivors of the Uruguayan Air Force F-227 plane crash. As the people who were eaten were not killed by the survivors but already dead, this removes the unethical element inherent in murder. The initial survivors made a pact that if they died they gave consent to be eaten by the group for survival, and therefore most people can empathise with the survivors acts and perceive them as ethical.

TL;DR: Tights get a bad rep – even though they adjust to your body way better than jeans do

• They stay up better. As long as you get the right size of tights, you won’t need to pull them up (or down) as much as you might for jeans. Tights come with an inbuilt belt in the form of the elastic waistband, which can sit wherever you find most comfortable.

• They fit better. A study by Invista found that 48% of women find it difficult to buy well-fitting jeans – I would argue that buying well-fitting tights is a significantly simpler feat due to their flexibility. Because of the high percentage of spandex in tights, they adjust and curve to fit your body far better than rigid denim can.

• They keep you at just the right temperature. Some tights incorporate temperature-adjusting technology: when it’s hot, they keep you cool; and when it’s cold, they keep you warm.

• They dry quicker. It can take between 4 and 24 hours for denim to dry depending on whether you are indoors or out, and they tend to go very stiff in the process. Getting caught in the rain or splashed by a puddle whilst wearing jeans means that you’ll likely be uncomfortable for the rest of the day. In contrast, tights only take between 5 and 30 minutes to dry, meaning that you can get on with your day!

TL;DR: Not confessing to a one-night stand prioritises your feelings and choices over your partner’s

I think that if you cheat on your partner in a monogamous relationship, you are obligated to tell them about it, even if it is just a “one-time” thing.

If you are in a committed relationship with one person, you have agreed to certain terms and conditions just as you would in a contract. If you steal money at work, even if you only do it once, you are breaching the terms of your employment contract - I apply this principle to relationships too. If my partner had a one-night stand, I would consider it cheating and a breach of our relationship.

I would want and expect them to tell me about their infidelity so that I am given autonomy. By confessing to a one-night stand, an unfaithful partner gives their faithful partner the power of choice: whether to end the relationship as a result of this breach of trust, or to work on repairing the relationship together. If you hide your infidelity from your partner, you take this autonomy away from them – by acting as if nothing has happened, you dictate your partner’s choice in order to continue your relationship. I believe that both partners in a relationship have a right to make their own choices. Choosing not to confess to a one-night stand means that the unfaithful partner prioritises their own autonomy and feelings over their partner’s: this is a selfish act.

Some people argue that confessing to a one-night stand causes unnecessary pain to the faithful partner, as this potentially meaningless one-time event has the capacity to ruin an otherwise happy relationship. However, a study by the University of Denver has found that someone who has cheated once in a relationship is three times as likely to cheat again. I think that confessing to a one-night stand immediately not only allows your partner the freedom to react how they see fit, but also gives you both the opportunity to address the problems in your relationship and prevent further infidelity and harm.

TL;DR: Human extinction will save the planet

• Human extinction, just like the extinction of every other animal, is inevitable. Scientists speculate that of all the species that have ever lived, 99.9% of them are now extinct. This is not tragedy, this is simply the way that life plays out. Humans have only existed for 0.002% of the Earth’s history; the Earth will outlive us, and this is no bad thing.

• Most scientists agree that there have been 5 mass extinctions in the last 600 million years, and many argue that we are currently going through the 6th. The current rate of species extinction is 100 times faster than the estimated average of previous extinction rates. It is thought that humankind and our fossil fuels are to blame for this acceleration. With human extinction, other species could recover from our effects on the environment and live longer themselves. Our extinction could potentially contribute positively to other life on Earth, and so could in some ways be seen as a positive.

• Technically speaking, human extinction would not be a tragedy because, as far as we know, only humans have a concept of tragedy. If humankind were wiped out, there would be no one left to regret or perceive our demise as tragic.

TL;DR St Paul was not the Founder of Christianity, but he was the Head of Development

It is true that St Paul was implemental in the development of Christianity into organised religion. However, I do not consider St Paul to be the founder of Christianity because I do not only define Christianity as organised religion, but also as a spiritual concept. As a belief system, I believe that Christianity predates its name: Christianity truly began when its core principles were founded and a group of people initially began following and teaching these principles.

Jesus was the conceptual and spiritual founder of Christianity. His teachings, as detailed in the New Testament and other contemporary texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls, are the foundations for the religion practiced today. These texts also establish that there were groups of Christians following and practicing Jesus’s teachings long before Paul became involved with Christianity.

Paul only became a Christian in 36 AD, which most scholars agree to be 3 years after Jesus’s crucifixion. Before his conversion on the road to Damascus, he actively persecuted Christians (as referenced in Book of Acts 8:1-3, 9:1-2, 22:4-5, 26:9-11, 1 Cor 15:9, Gal 1:13, 23, and Phil 3:6). In order to persecute this group, the group must have been pre-established: Paul cannot have founded Christianity if there were already Christians in existence.

However, Paul undoubtedly played a vital role in growing Christianity into an organised religion, by converting Gentiles. He travelled extensively to preach to gentiles across the Mediterranean, founding small Christian communities in each place and thus setting the path for Christianity as a world religion. Paul also contributed to the growth of Christianity through his theological writings: in fact, Paul was the first to give Jesus’s followers the name ‘Christians’. However, I do not think that the act of naming equates the act of founding, and therefore consider Jesus to be the founder of Christianity.

TL;DR Racial prejudice is not the same as racism

Racial prejudice describes a pejorative or discriminatory attitude that is often founded on racial stereotypes and attached to perceptions about race, skin colour, or nationality. Racial stereotypes exist for every race, and therefore white people can be victims of racial prejudice.

However, there are significantly fewer racial stereotypes about white people than about any other race because in our society, whiteness is seen as default and non-whiteness as other. In general, racial stereotypes about white people are also less damaging than stereotypes about other races – more often to do with dancing or mayonnaise than violence or intelligence. Whilst white people can be victims of racial prejudice, this is uncommon: in general, people from other races experience racial prejudice at a higher rate and degree than white people.

There is a fundamental difference between racism and racial prejudice. Racism is characterized by its relation to systemic power. In 2020, a graduate from Drake University called Kennedy Mitchum asked the Merriam-Webster dictionary to revise its definition of racism to reference the systemic aspects inherent to it. Mitchum defines racism as “not only prejudice against a certain race due to the color of a person’s skin… It is both prejudice combined with social and institutional power. It is a system of advantage based on skin color”.

Racial prejudice against white people is not racism because it is not systemic. White people cannot be victims of racism because we exist in a racialised society that favours whiteness – throughout history, social and institutional power has rested with white people. White people benefit the repercussions of this every day, such as in education, career opportunities, and healthcare.

I agree that there are racial stereotypes about white people, but I think that they usually have less harmful consequences than racial stereotypes about people of colour, for example in education or healthcare.

Many white people are less privileged than some people of colour but these are owing to an intersection of factors other than race, such as social class, money, gender identity, disability, religion, and nationality, among many others. White privilege is only one aspect of social privilege, and will have more benefits for someone with other social privileges than for those without them.

I understand interpersonal racism to be a symptom of systemic racism, and therefore I don't agree that white people can experience interpersonal racism - however I do think that they can experience racial prejudice.

TL;DR Violence is necessary for social change

• Violence is wrong because it causes harm to others. However, violence against violence that is intended to reduce this overall harm can be justified. This is particularly true in totalitarian regimes, where the dominant power exerts their force through violence upon its subjects.

• Even Nelson Mandela, known for his peaceful approach in his fight to end apartheid in South Africa, recognised that “Force is the only language the imperialists can hear, and no country became free without some sort of violence.". From his own experience, he argues that violence is the only form of protest that induces a reaction from oppressive powers.

• The political philosopher Frantz Fanon, who wrote extensively on Algeria’s fight for independence, explains that “decolonization is always a violent phenomenon”; destruction is a necessity in all social change, as to rebuild you must first destroy. Colonization itself sets this tone for violence: colonizers took territories from native people by killing them and ripping apart their pre-established systems of governance; they then maintained control through corporal punishment and forced labour. The violence necessary for decolonization can therefore be justified because it is enacted in order to end these violent and oppressive regimes.

TL;DR Smartphones do our menial thinking so that we can focus our smarts on more important stuff

• Smartphones can remember information for us so that we don’t have to. Bill Nye the Science Guy thinks that this can make us smarter because our brains don’t get clogged up with banal information, and we can therefore put more mental energy into the important stuff, like critical, analytical, and lateral thinking

• Smartphones allow us constant access to knowledge through the Internet. A study by Elon University in 2010 shows that 76% of scientists agreed that by 2020 our use of the Internet would have enhanced human intelligence. Using the Internet is not only a great way to learn new facts (and opinions!), but also develops cognitive processes: using a search engine improves creative thinking; skim reading advances our intake of information; and the sheer amount of contradictory material on the Internet forces us to read critically. All of these skills are paramount to human intelligence.

TL;DR Some people wake up from comas speaking a different language

Research has found that, on average, it takes an English speaker 480 hours of study and practice to attain basic fluency in an easy language (such as French or Italian) and 720 hours for a more complex one (such a Mandarin or Arabic).

For many, daily practice is the fastest way to learn a new language in order to whittle away at these necessary hours. However, this timescale cannot compare to claims of Foreign Language syndrome, when people become seemingly fluent in a foreign language after suffering a brain injury. These cases are very rare, and often overexaggerated by the media, but in the last 10 years there have been multiple reports and first-hand accounts of this strange phenomenon.

It is theorised that these sudden acquisitions or improvements of a secondary language are due to the sudden loss of the primary language. This is termed bilingual or polygot aphasia, a language impediment caused by brain injuries. Neuroscientists think that fluent speech (primary languages) and non-fluent speech (secondary languages) are stored in different areas of the brain. They suggest that in these cases aphasia prevents the patient from speaking their fluent, primary language, and instead automatically speak in a non-fluent, secondary language that they have some prior knowledge of. Brian Dunning suggests that Foreign Language syndrome patients seem suddenly fluent in their previously non-fluent language because “the brain’s loss of the first language eliminated a slow process that had existed before”; the erasure of the first language also erases the need for internal translation, which can make language learners pause and sound non-fluent. By being forced to rely on a secondary language and without the hindrance of translation, some patients go on to attain true fluency in a matter of weeks even if they regain use of their primary language, making it a fast if unfortunate way of learning a language.

TL;DR There is a distinction between body positivity and the Body Positivity Movement: there is only room for slim bodies in the former

Body positivity is the concept of accepting and celebrating bodies for what they do and how they look. Practicing body positivity can lead to a healthy body image, which is beneficial for your mental and physical health, self-confidence, and sense of identity. Anyone who has a body can practice body positivity and benefit from it.

However, body positivity is now synonymous with the Body Positivity Movement. This movement was forged out of the fat acceptance movement in the 1960s, which advocated to end society’s discrimination of fat people. The current wave of the Body Positivity Movement arose in the early 2010s, as a reaction to societal beauty standards that rejected and shamed plus-size, disabled, transgender, and non-white bodies. Body Positivity has a long history of subversion: often lead by fat women of colour and disabled women, their self-acceptance is a radical statement that challenges society, which has equated worthiness with slimness. The ultimate aim of the Body Positivity Movement was to fight the systemic oppression of people in ostracised bodies (such as fat, disabled, and older bodies) and to advocate for their rights. These aims include: in society, to rewrite negative stereotypes about fat people; in healthcare, to treat fat patients with as much care and respect as slim patients; in fashion, to make larger sizes of clothing more accessible; in the media, to represent the diversity of fat people; and in travel and leisure, to make seats bigger.

In recent years, there has been a noticeable shift in who forefronts the Body Positivity movement. As body positivity has gained attention from wider society, brands and public figures have commodified it. As a result of this, the people celebrated as advocates for body positivity have got thinner (and paler) as the movement progresses; there is less exposure for advocates over a certain size, leading to some commenting that it celebrates only the “acceptably fat”. Many slim-bodied people now also participate in the Body Positivity Movement through social media, with recent viral TikTok videos of slim people embracing their own stomach rolls.

Slim-bodied people can also suffer from the pressures of societal beauty standards and can engage in self-acceptance and self-love to counter this. However, the problem with their involvement in the Body Positivity Movement is that they often get more attention than fat advocates, due to the institutional bias in favour of slim people. As slim-bodied people have joined the Body Positivity Movement, fat people have been decentred and excluded from it. This has caused the movement’s message to change: it now focuses primarily on empowerment and self-love for all bodies, and far less on tackling the systemic discrimination of fat people.

Fat people must be re-centred in the Body Positivity narrative, in order to improve the lived experiences of fat people. The Body Positivity Movement is not for slim bodies, because slim bodies are already accepted by society, and the participation of slim-bodied people in this political movement hinders its mission.

TL;DR: You can cheat on your IQ test

• IQ tests are not an accurate gauge of natural intelligence, because you can get better at them. Steven Piantadosi explains that IQ scores can change according to time and context, and can be altered by practice, motivation, and tutoring. He argues that IQ tests are an unreliable measure of natural ability because they can be so easily affected by preparation and context: “I think it’s a mistake to say that your true ability can be summarized by how much you’re willing to put into a test”.

• Education affects IQ scores. Cognitive skills measured by IQ tests, such as reasoning, lateral thinking, and problem solving, are taught in academic subjects, like Maths and English. Studies show that IQ scores often drop in children who are regularly absent from school, and rise in older children, who have spent longer in education.

• Listening to Mozart's Sonata for two pianos in D major beforehand can help you get a higher IQ score. Playing sports or boardgames, and drinking coffee (or even alcohol!) have also been linked to achieving higher IQ scores, as these activities can improve your reaction speed, verbal intelligence, and spatial insight.

TL;DR Cedric and Hermione deserve better

I personally refuse to accept that Harry Potter and the Cursed Child is canon because it repeatedly goes against characterisations that had been consistently developed throughout 7 books. The Cursed Child rewrites many other characters in ways that do not correlate to the books: family-oriented Harry becomes a bad dad; and Voldemort, perhaps the most asexual character ever written, fathers a child with Bellatrix Lestrange.

The play’s ridiculous plot is based upon the premise that if “nice guy” Cedric Diggory had survived and lost The Triwizard Tournament to Harry, he would have sought his revenge by becoming a Death Eater. This seems highly out of character for Cedric, who is consistently portrayed in The Goblet of Fire as a decent and kind Hufflepuff student who tries his best but is not overly obsessed with winning. In fact, in The Prisoner of Azkaban, when Hufflepuff win the quidditch match partly because Harry has fallen off his broom, Cedric immediately offers a rematch because he considers this unfair – proving that he is not a sore loser.

I find the writers’ treatment of Hermione the most jarring. The Cursed Child shows Hermione becoming Minister for Magic in the correct timeline. Whilst even this seems unlikely to me, as Hermione is disinterested in power, status, and would probably better suit a role in elf welfare, I do not doubt her capabilities as a strong and benevolent leader. However, as one of the butterfly effects in the alternate timeline, she doesn’t marry Ron and somehow this influences her career; instead of becoming Minister, she becomes a bitter and abusive Hogwarts teacher in the style of Severus Snape. Throughout the 7 Harry Potter books, Hermione is consistently kind, especially to the vulnerable and even when she is fighting with Ron. She is also consistently ambitious and successful – she performs well in class regardless of personal problems. It is an insult to the character that The Cursed Child implies that her personality and career prospects are so fragile as to be completely altered by a romantic relationship.

TL;DR The arts and culture industry is vital to our economy – we must keep it alive

Aside from the fact that theatres and museums are altruistic institutions that exist to benefit the public culturally and educationally, they are also vital to our economy.

In 2016, the arts and culture sector contributed to the UK economy with £21.2bn in direct turnover, with £10.8bn in Gross Value Added (GVA). When also taking indirect effects into account, the industry is estimated to have provided £48bn in turnover, and £23bn in GVA.

Museums and theatres are essential to the tourist industry: 40% of the UK’s tourists name culture as the reason for their visit; and 43% of tourists visit museums and art galleries during their stay. Tourism has been the fastest growing sector in the UK since 2010, contributing £106bn a year to the economy and providing over 2 million jobs.

During the pandemic, many theatres and museums have had to stay closed due to lockdown conditions and social distancing measures. Because of this, many have been unable to maintain a commercial income, and have instead depended on government grants and individual donors to survive. However, once borders are reopened, these same theatres and museums will once again attract tourists to our shores and help to pump life back into the economy. From a purely economical point of view, taxpayer money should be used to sustain public interest institutions like theatres and museums because they are necessary for the long term health of our economy.

TL;DR The book itself does not glorify paedophilia, but some of its readers do

Nobody could interpret Humbert Humbert as a good man. Vladimir Nabokov’s presentation of his unreliable narrator in Lolita is so extreme that is almost parody – his voice is at once grandiose and pathetic, and Nabokov uses it to emphasise Humbert’s arrogance, manipulation, and delusion.

Our understanding of Humbert as unreliable ascribes his actions with immorality: we condemn his false marriage to Charlotte, his murder of Clare Quilty, and above all, his paedophilia towards Dolores. Nabokov presents paedophilia as evil and destructive. At the end of the novel, both Humbert and his Lolita are dead. We learn that after leaving Humbert, Dolores is dragged into a cycle of sexual abuse: after leaving Quilty, she falls into poverty and must rely on Humbert’s monetary support, eventually dying in childbirth aged 17. During their last encounter, even Humbert can see that he has ruined Dolores’ life. There is no glory here.

However, the complexity of the novel’s moral depictions comes with its language and syntax. Nabokov’s writing is so lyrically seductive, chock-a-block with alliteration, wordplay, and snippets of other languages, that at times the reader can sympathise with Humbert, but the structure of the novel prevents Humbert’s redemption.

Some readers have understood Lolita as a love story because the character of Humbert romanticises his paedophilia – even when he realises the immorality of his sexual actions towards Dolores, he still maintains that he loves her. However, any astute reader will understand that Nabokov’s use of narrative completely undermines Humbert’s romantic statements and condemns paedophilia. It takes two to be in love, and Humbert’s first person narrative completely excludes the feelings of the actual Lolita. It is therefore not Lolita that glorifies paedophilia, but some of its mis-readers who interpret it as a love story.

TL;DR Research links certain human genes to aggressive behaviour

There is no denying that humans are violent. From a zoological perspective, humans are the most violent species on Earth: as children we hit and bite each other; as individuals we brawl and murder; as groups we wage wars and commit terrorism. We have even invented weapons to help us carry out violence against others.

We are distinguished from much of the animal kingdom because of our propensity to kill our own kind. In a study researching lethal violence in mammals, scientists found that on average, only 0.3% of deaths in mammals are caused by members of the same species, compared to 2.3% in humans and primates.

This inclination towards killing each other is attributed to joint factors: that humans are territorial and that we live in social groups. Research suggests that these animal behaviours are influenced by both environment and genetics.

Some people are more genetically predisposed to violence than others. In a study by Karolinska Institute, scientists analysed the genetics of a group of 900 violent offenders and found 2 genes associated with aggressive behaviour in a significant proportion of the most violent: monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) and a variant of cadherin 13 (CDH13).

MAOA has been previously associated with aggressive behaviour and nicknamed “the warrior gene”. MAOA catalyses multiple neurotransmitters, such as dopamine and serotonin (which give us pleasure). Low MAOA activity in the brain means that fewer of these neurotransmitters get catalysed, and research suggests that people with lower MAOA activity might therefore be more prone to aggressive impulses, leading to violent behaviour. The Karolinska Institute study found that those with these genes were 13 times more likely to have a record of repeated violence.

This does not mean that everyone with this gene will commit violent acts, but that they may well have to police themselves more closely than others and practice more self-restraint. This genetic predisposition does not guarantee or excuse violent behaviour: like all humans, individuals with this gene still have free will and consciousness and are therefore nevertheless accountable for their actions.

TL;DR Gender is infinite

Gender is a concept that we use to interpret who we and other people are. It is a social construct that relates characteristics, behaviours, and societal roles to labels based on a binary of the masculine and feminine. At birth, we are usually assigned gender in correspondence to our biological sex. Because most (but not all) people fall into two sex categories, male or female, in Western societies it has been presumed that there are only two genders.

However, just because historically we have understood gender through binary terms does not mean that this is the extent of gender. Many people understand and experience gender outside of the traditional binary. In the past 20 years, we have created new terms to better describe different gender experiences such as non-binary, which is often used as an umbrella term for gender identities that are not solely male or female. There are now many terms for different gender experiences, such as genderqueer, bigender, and agender.

Gender is ultimately self-defined. You form your gender identity from how you feel; from your innate sense of self, your experiences, and your interactions with society. Therefore, gender is not something that should be assessed or prescribed by others – as part of identity, it can only be assessed by the individual. As many people identify with genders other than male or female, or without gender entirely, there are more than two genders. As we all experience gender uniquely, there is potentially an infinite number of genders and ways of experiencing gender.

TL;DR Like violence, lying can be justified when intended to protect instead of to inflict harm

Lying is generally judged to be unethical because it can cause harm. Lies can emotionally hurt others; whether or not the lie is of significant consequences, discovering that someone has intentionally deceived you often inflicts the pain of betrayal and broken trust.

Some understand lying as an act of violence. Mohandas Gandhi famously said that “lying is the mother of violence”; he interpreted lying as a causation as well as a form of violence, and argued that in Hinduism and Jainism satya (truth) was the most important principle in practicing ahimsa (non-violence).

In her philosophical study of lying, Sissela Bok argues for the possibility of justified lying – lies which are told in order to defend someone from harm instead of to inflict it. Bok proposes a Scheme of Applied Publicity to measure whether a lie is justifiable or not. She argues that for a lie to be considered justifiable, the liar must firstly inspect their own conscience and the context of the lie, and then act to consult others, especially those with contrasting backgrounds and perspectives.

Like violence, lying is generally wrong but can be justified in certain situations. As the main ethical concerns against lying revolve around its likelihood to cause harm, it is justifiable to lie when doing so will protect someone from harm.

TL;DR: Zoos are a form of neocolonialism

Zoos should be closed as they are founded upon colonial principles. The first modern zoos, set up in 18th century Europe, were used as a way to teach imperial citizens about the places that their Empire had colonised. They exhibited people alongside animals and plants, to emphasise their “savagery” and justify their domination.

Whilst zoos no longer exhibit human beings and Empire has dissolved, zoos still inspire a colonial mindset. As visitors come to gaze at animals, no longer behind bars but placed in enclosures decorated as their natural habitats, they imagine wild and faraway lands. Upon viewing a wild animal in a decorated enclosure, we dream of exploring unpeopled territories – just like the colonialists that came before us. We project our own ideas of “the exotic” onto the animal and its fake surrounding, and in this enact a kind of colonial fantasy. The public zoo, often unintentionally, allows and inspires this outdated colonial mindset, and therefore contributes to neocolonialism.

TL;DR: What makes a classic a classic? Many exceptional books have been excluded from the Literary Canon for societal reasons - we must reinvent the Canon to include books by previously underappreciated writers of merit.

Indisputably, many people enjoy reading classical books and consider doing so a form of self-improvement – classical literature not only can improve our vocabulary, but can teach us new things and broaden our world-view. However, in assessing whether classical literature is essential reading, it is important to assess what makes a classic a classic.

A classical book is one that has been widely and historically agreed to be of merit. It takes a while for something to reach 'classic' status, so the majority of books considered classics were written a long time ago. In literary studies, we often term classical books canonical - referring to the concept of the Canon, or Western Canon, the group of books considered in the Western world to be the 'best' literature, from Homer's The Odyssey to F Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby.

The concept of the Canon places literature in a hierarchy – canonical texts are by proxy considered as superior to non-canonical texts. This is why people can get a lot of kudos for reading classical books; whether or not we have read them, we deem them to be more intellectually challenging and important than the average recent publication, simply because they have achieved classical status.

This is problematic when we assess who decides which books are classics. Historically, this has been predominantly white, Western, middle to upper class men who chose to read books by predominantly white, Western, middle to upper class male writers, writing in English. Because of social stigma, many exceptional books by women, people of colour, queer writers, and writers not writing in English, were excluded from the canon for purely societal reasons.

It is essential that we work to rediscover such waylaid texts and expand our notions of the canon. By fleshing out the canon, including previously ignored authors, we can more accurately represent the extent of past and present literature. The benefits of reading classical books are even greater when read alongside less acknowledged books. To attain self-improvement through reading, it is essential to read fully and widely from a great diversity of texts and writers.

TL;DR: Skiing is faster

Part of the fun of both skiing and snowboarding is that you can go fast. Even someone skiing or snowboarding very slowly will be moving faster than they could ever walk or run.

Humans are obsessed with speed. When we move quickly, whether by car, horse, skis, or snowboard, our bodies create the hormone adrenaline. This causes our blood pressure, heart rate, and body temperature to rise – which makes us feel alive and excited. This then triggers a release of dopamine, known as a reward chemical because it makes us feel happy and motivated. Going fast causes our bodies to generate pleasure chemicals, which many people become slightly addicted to – think thrill-seekers and adrenaline junkies.

Skiing is better than snowboarding because skiing is faster than snowboarding. The world record for skiing is 157 mph (252 km/h) compared to the snowboarding speed record of 126 mph (203km/h). Skiers can gain more speed than snowboarders because they can minimize wind resistance by crouching down into streamlined positions, whilst snowboarders cannot because their legs are locked a set distance apart to their board. 2 skis offer more surface area than 1 snowboard, so when skiers turn, their weight is more evenly distributed and then can pick up more speed. Because skiing is faster than snowboarding, theoretically there is a greater opportunity to attain this dopamine hit, even when you acclimatise to the speed. So, at least in theory, skiing can make you happier than snowboarding.

TL;DR: Holden Caulfield is a big fat liar, but aren’t we all

Anyone who has ever studied English at high school knows that Holden Caulfield hates phonys. In J D Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye we follow Holden’s angsty romp around New York, throughout which he dismisses almost every character he encounters as a ‘phony’. Readers soon get the gist that this is Holden’s favourite insult, which he uses to condemn inauthenticity, deceit, and hypocrisy in others who pretend to be something they’re not in order to assimilate into society.

However, Holden himself is a phony: he hypocritically judges other people for lying, whilst continually lying to them (and perhaps himself). Near the beginning, he carries out plagiarism by writing an English composition for his roommate Ward Stradlater under his name. During his escapade, he creates multiple fake aliases, such as Jim Steel and Rudolf Schmidt. He repeatedly disapproves of others for ignoring their own feelings, but simultaneously refuses to acknowledge his own grief at the death of his younger brother, Allie, or obsession with Jane Gallagher.

To a degree, Holden recognises his propensity for lying, saying “Once I get started, I can go on for hours if I feel like it. No kidding. Hours”. However, Salinger refrains from making Holden entirely self-aware –we get the picture that despite his moments of self-hatred, Holden still considers himself separate from and above the characters he calls phonies, which makes him a massive hypocrite.

Salinger does not attempt to present Holden as a flawless character – in the irony of writing Holden as a phony who hates phonies, Salinger raises the question: who is Holden to judge others for being phonies? This raises a more significant and useful question than psychoanalysing fictional characters: who are we to judge Holden for being a phony? As Salinger writes through Holden, “I’m always saying “Glad to’ve met you” to somebody I’m not at all glad I met. If you want to stay alive, you have to say that stuff, though”. We live in a phony world; we all enact and tolerate a little phoniness now and then. Salinger exposes Holden as a phony, but in doing so, forces the reader to reflect upon their own phoniness.

TL;DR: Feminist theologians reinterpret religion from a feminist perspective

Feminism is not incompatible with religion. Many feminists are religious and there are feminists of every faith. Feminist theology is a movement and theoretical practice that applies feminist theory to religious study and interpretation. It is not restrained to one religion but is intersectional, as feminist theologians of all ethnicities, nationalities, and faiths attempt to reinterpret and reclaim different religions from a feminist perspective.

Feminist theologians attest that oppressive patriarchal systems have formed and instructed religious institutions and their teachings, through interpreting religious texts in a way that justifies the oppression of women. Through critically reading and re-translating the language of religious texts, feminist theologians emphasise the overarching messages of equality, justice, and freedom that exist in almost every religion.

For example, Hindu feminist theology centres the importance of Shakti the Mother Goddess; Christian feminist theology emphasises the portrayal of women as leaders, theologians, and intellectuals in John’s Gospel; Muslim feminist theology emphasises the Prophet Muhammad’s call for women’s rights; and Jewish feminist theology builds upon the many religious and political roles of women found in the Torah. By re-reading and reinterpreting religious texts critically, many feminist theologians find feminism to be compatible with religion, and are working to create religious institutions that reflect this.

TL;DR: Chess can burn calories

The Oxford English Dictionary defines sport as “An activity involving physical exertion and skill […] one regulated by set rules or customs in which an individual or team competes against another or others”. Many arguments against chess as a sport are based upon the principle that chess is not physically exerting, as it is played sitting down and chess pieces are lightweight. However, studies have shown that grandmaster chess players show significant signs of physical exertion during important tournaments, with increased heart rates, breathing rates, blood pressure, and muscle contractions.

In 2018, a company called Polar monitored the heart rates of chess players during a tournament. On average, humans burn 120 to 260 calories through sitting down for 2 hours, but Polar found that the Russian grandmaster Mikhail Antipov had burned 560 calories in 2 hours of the chess game. Robert Sapolsky estimates that a grandmaster chess player can burn up to 6,000 calories a day whilst competing in a tournament. As a result of this physical exertion, there are multiple reports of chess players losing substantial amounts of weight during tournaments.

Scientists theorise that these signs of physical exertion are caused by the mental stress that high standard chess players endure. Games can last hours and tournaments weeks, which require extreme levels of concentration and mental dexterity. This mental exertion translates into physical effects, such as muscle tension, perspiration, rapid breathing, and an increased heart rate; effects which also happen to be caused by physical exercise.

Chess is a competitive game which requires great mental skill, is regulated by complex rules, and can be physically exerting, according to some scientific studies. Chess accedes to the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of sport, and can therefore be considered as one.

TL;DR: Mamma Mia 2’s plot is based heavily upon the plot of the first film, but simultaneously gets it wrong

The whole premise of Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again is to fill in the ‘dot-dot-dots’ of the first film, which I personally believe would have been better left as ‘dot-dot-dots’. We begin Mamma Mia 2 knowing exactly what will happen, because the essential plot of the second film has already been given in the first, during Amanda Seyfried’s rendition of Honey Honey. This takes away much of the intrigue and suspense in watching the film. However, at the same time, the viewer is infuriated because the plot of Mamma Mia 2 simultaneously manages to go against the plot of the first film: in Mamma Mia!, Donna meets Sam, then Bill, then Harry; in Mamma Mia 2, Donna meets Harry, then Sam, then Bill. This significant change in the order of events invalidates the testimony given in Donna’s diary, which for a cult-fan of the film (as many Mamma Mia 2 viewers will be) is aggravating and reduces the film’s overall enjoyability.

This change in order is not only logically problematic, but anti-feminist. The director and writer, Ol Parker, explains that he changed the order of events “to give (Donna) slightly different reasons for each of the men,[…] Young Harry is comedy and a slight pathos and also charming. Young Sam is a love story. Young Bill is to help her feel better from having a broken heart”. This approach, which aims to justify Donna’s promiscuity, seems like an outdated and misogynistic policing of female sexuality.

TW: Sexual harassment

TL;DR: Banning public nudity protects people from sexual harassment

In places where being fully-dressed is a cultural norm, such as in Britain, public nudity should remain illegal. Laws against public nudity are in part based upon the Harm Principle; these laws exist to protect people from being harmed by others. The state of nakedness is not harmful: every human has a body and experiences nudity alone or with others daily. The legality (or illegality) of public nudity is therefore based upon how members of the public perceive it, rather than upon the act itself.

In British culture, nudity is something that takes place in private, either alone, or during an intimate sexual encounter with a partner. The idea of public nudity is therefore taboo as it goes against our culture of private nudity. Due to our associations of nudity with sex, we have been conditioned to sexualise adult naked bodies. Consequently, public nudity acquires sexual connotations whether or not the exhibition of public nudity has an intentionally sexual context. This is partly because many instances of public nudity in clothes-wearing societies are presented in a sexual context, which we condemn as indecent exposure. These are a form of sexual harassment, as the person who is ‘flashed’ cannot consent to observing the flasher, and these incidents cause harm to the target, who can feel threatened, alarmed, or distressed.

Whilst many public nudists do not intend to cause distress or expose themselves in a sexual context to others, the people who observe their nudity have no way of knowing these intentions and might well feel alarmed and threatened regardless. One person’s well-intended public nudity might look like indecent exposure to another.

It is of note that naked bodies are interpreted differently due to their sex. As men are more often perpetrators of sexual violence, the public display of naked male bodies is more often perceived as threatening and harmful to onlookers than the public display of other bodies. Due to the stigma around female sexuality in our patriarchal society, the public display of naked female bodies is often perceived as an open invitation to sexual harassment. Likewise, due to the prevalence of sexual violence against transgender people in our society, the public display of naked transgender (and potentially intersex) bodies might also put these people at risk of harm.

Until we live in a society where sexual violence is significantly reduced, public nudity must remain illegal in order to protect people from sexual harassment and distress.

Slang can be defined as informal, unofficial, or unauthorized vocabulary or expressions that deviate from standardized, dictionary-approved language. In English, we might categorize slang as Non-Standard English, which contrasts with the Standard English usually used in academic and professional writing. However, this understanding of official or unofficial language hides an important question - who authorizes or standardizes language and what gives them that authority? Historically, the answer to this question has been the dominant culture, which in the case of English has been white and upper-middle class.

It is significant that slang is often invented by and attributed to (often oppressed) sub-cultures within the dominant society, such as queer culture, roadman youth culture, and African-American culture. A group within the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) issued a demand for Black Linguistic Justice in July 2020. They argue against the teaching of Standard English as a communicative standard and counter the encouragement of code-switching (changing one’s speech pattern and vocabulary to assimilate to a certain environment). Instead, they stress the importance of teaching students about the connection between Standard English, colonialism, and white linguistic supremacy.

Asif Agha points out that “the term slang may be employed as a term of open pejoration for virtually any form of speech simply in order to dismiss it” – slang is a loaded term, and labelling words and expressions as slang can be used as a way to silence and suppress. In context, the dismissal of slang often acts as a silencing and suppression of already marginalised groups. Baker-Bell states that “the anti-Black linguistic racism that is used to diminish Black Language and Black students in classrooms is not separate from the rampant and deliberate anti-Black racism and violence inflicted upon Black people in society”. The policing of black language, and indeed any language that goes against the norm of Standard English, is a form of systemic racism.

To ban slang from classrooms would be a homogenising of language as well as a form of linguistic discrimination. Due to the prevalence of slang use by marginalised groups and cultures, policing slang use in classrooms would likely affect students from certain cultural backgrounds disproportionally. By enforcing Standard English in speech, students with slang-heavy idiolects might become discouraged to speak up in class, and ultimately disengaged. As people from marginalised cultures are currently underrepresented in most academic and professional spheres, to create new barriers within education by restricting language might well impede the progress of equal representation in the workplace.

SOURCES:
Aghar, Asif, ‘Tropes of Slang’ (2015) https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/683179 [accessed 26 February 2021].

Baker-Bell, April, Linguistic Justice (2020), Routledge.

NCTE, ‘This Ain’t Another Statement! This is a DEMAND for Black Linguistic Justice!’ (2020) https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/demand-for-black-linguistic-justice [accessed 26 February 2021].

Ogbuagu, Buster C., ‘Wuz Up Wit Dat?: Exploring the Colonizing Properties of the Standard English Language and its Implications for the Denudation and Denigration of Black Survivalist and Stylistic Language, Syntax and Phonology’ (2013),
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/228565023.pdf [accessed 26 February 2021].