msiacotos

Fan works promote the idea of collective ownership. There are strict social rules on acknowledging the authorship of a work but no love lost when ideas from individual works are lifted and reworked. This is especially clear in the “inspired by” tab on archive of our own, a popular fanfiction site.

By ownership I’m thinking in the legal sense, I think social sentiments around owning ideas an profiting off them directly will change with it and hopefully, overtime, copywriter laws will too to be more forgiving surrounding derivative works

I think it’s normal but that it shouldn’t be. The person is mad because they expected sex but I don’t think sex should be an expectation ¯_(ツ)_/¯

tldr: it still doesn't matter because ultimately the world we experience is the one of the most consequence, I'd prefer to find happiness within that reality.

If what you say is fact, then I personally still think it doesn't matter because I don't think theres a way to tell between simulated reality and genuine reality.

I would say "it would be fruitless to try and find a way out of the simulation because centuries of other people haven't been able to find a way out" but then that brings up the question of whether or not we can trust our memories. Basically, there is so little that we can be sure isn't simulation.

All I can be confident in is that I am a conscious being and that how I experience the world (through my senses) is the most 'real' the world will ever become.

I am okay living in a simulation because I still experience the world in all of its goodness and badness. To question that reality would be a new kind of suffering that I think would eat away at me until it drives me to a destructive state of nihilism.

Alternatively I could just accept that the world may or may not be a simulation and try to find happiness within that.

"Bad words" are meaningless. Not being able to say curse words (ex. at work, in front of children) is ridiculous because curse words serve no function other than to be bad.

The common idea is that we shouldn't swear 1) because it is disrespectful/mean/rude or 2) it is indicative of "poor education" or a disreputable status. My response is that swear words only have the power we give them. They are words we can use diversely (yes Urban Dictionary is a reputable source in this case because we're dealing with internet slang).

I wouldn't want to make my next argument law, but it is something I think people should be aware of. Language can be used as a barrier to better jobs. People are expected to be able to articulate themselves in certain ways (i.e. how to format an email) but word choice, dictation, and accent effect the prospects of minority students (especially in the US). Swearing is not indicative of low education.

Overall I think there is a difference between a word used to hurt and a word used for emphasis or embellishment (aka liberal uses of swears).

It seems like your claim could be supported but I would caution against claiming that "women taste different from men" because gender categorization is becoming increasingly contested and sex isn't as binary as we think it is

While in the short term we could claim that "women taste different from men" it's important to recognize the potentially harmful assumptions we make when making that statement.

I just don't like waking up and it being an hour later. Ruins my whole day :(

TLDR: I agree! I think genuine ecotourism is beneficial but is difficult because tourism necessarily commodifies the environment for consumption.

I think ecotourism is a good thing, but actually implementing it can be difficult. One of the draws of tourism is the ability to go out and see "exotic" places. This often means leaving the cities (where pollution and cultural ripple effects can be better contained) and going out into the wilderness or coming into contact with more "native" areas.

Because we live in a capitalist society, many tourism companies have marketed their green practices or nature attractions when really those things have little effect on the sustainability of tourism.

Balancing the line between consumption and preservation of the environment is very complicated

It makes sense for articles of impeachment to be served by the House of Representatives, but the actual determination of illegality/legality of actions should be determined by legal experts i.e. judges and not senators who may have conflicting interests.

Yes I see where you are drawing your argument from. But I still find it problematic that politicians are deciding the legality/illegality of a sitting president's behavior. We leave the determination for the fitness of office to 1) officials that have agendas and, while elected, serve their own interests as well as the interests of interest groups and 2) we are depending on norms of appropriate behavior to convict presidents (the idea that senators would convict a president based on principles)

If a court were to determine legality they would be less beholden to political agendas and actually be able to determine the heinousness of the President's actions.

At the end of the day its not important whether or not this kind of thing would be unconstitutional but if it is the right step to make to preserve American democracy. We have to be more dynamic as a country and not continually restricted to old principles and documents.

I think politicians have specific goals and motives. Some claim that they are legitimized because they are elected, but Senators serve more interests than those of their constituents; namely reelection and interest groups.

When trying to decide what is good for America politicians are inherently short sighted whereas judges continually weigh the impact precedent would create.

I don't see how a senate trial is less partisan than a court hearing might be. And there aren't procedures in place for the Supreme Court to try a President but I argue that it should. And it is subject to checks and balances in place because Supreme Court justices are appointed by elected officials. I think there is significantly more trust in the Supreme Court than there is in congress at the moment and a trial in the Courts could restore some trust in the government as a whole by more thoroughly holding officials in office accountable.

not really about the topic but I thought this was talking about Mr. Mosby from Suite Life of Zach and Cody and I was like yea he is huh...

I think this is an interesting argument, but I want to hone in on one of your first sentences:

• "The rules currently allow athletes who have transitioned from female to male to compete, however, for athletes having transitioned from male to female, there is much more controversy. It remains important for officials to guarantee fairness for all athletes, but most importantly for female cisgender athletes."

My immediate thought is, "Okay, its acceptable for FTM to participate in cisgender male sport but not MTF because that would be unfair. This implies that a MTF athlete participating in cisgendered female sports is unfair because the transgendered person has an 'advantage.' But then, by that logic, isn't it unfair for the a FTM transgender athlete to participate in cisgendered male sports. Isn't the trans athlete at a disadvantage?"

This logic implies that its okay for trans men to be at a disadvantage in a male sport, but not okay for a trans woman to be at an advantage in a female sport because both are still seen as their birth sex (as 'weaker women' or 'stronger men.'

If the real goal was fairness both of these categories would receive the same amount of attention, but instead we're splitting hairs about testosterone levels.

In conclusion: The solution to trans athletes (and any athlete that doesn't fit contemporary definitions of gender or sex) cannot be barring them from competition. If we really want to create a more inclusive society that treats people with fairness we need to radically reexamine gender, and the structures in society that are supported by it. I think we need to reimagine what athletic competition looks like - a system without gender.

tldr: I definitely agree with this thread, but in the effort of including ace/aro in the LGBT+ community, we need to be careful not to recreate the same exclusionary spirit that inspires the "A is for Allies" position

I agree but I think its important to make another comment. I think its better to say that the A in LGBTQIA stands for ace/aro and not allies because ace/aro are part of the community not because allies aren't. This feels important to me because theLGBT+ space is trying to expand what we accept about gender and sexuality. By explicitly excluding allies we are alienating crucial support in redefining what gender and sexuality is in the greater society.

As an asexual person myself, I don't want my inclusion to mean someone else's exclusion. The project of the LGBT+ community, to radically redefine gender/sexuality for the betterment of society, is more important than making inflexible labels and acronyms.

tldr; there isn't just one solution, we need to consider making several moves at once and with developing technology if we want to fight climate change

I think there cant be any one solution, but instead a mutlilayered multilateral solution. Not only do consumers need to decrease energy usage but so do firms. At the same time we need to convert our energy sector into renewables so that we aren't dependent on any one source.

You also didn't mention biofuels which are also a viable option. As I understand it the US is currently over producing some food products like corn. If we can find a way to convert some farms and agribusiness from overproduced products into a more useful use of land like biofuels, I think we can more realistically integrate the economy and the environment for a more sustainable future.

tldr: we need to destigmatize alcohol for young people and teach them to make decisions about drugs and alcohol at a younger age instead of just dictating decisions to them.

I think we should treat 18 year olds more like adults (reasonably). Its really jarring for 18 year olds to go from raising their hands to go to the bathroom and filing taxes etc in the span of basically one month. We treat young people like they can't make decisions for themselves but its so much more complicated than that. Instead of dictating decisions to young adults we should teach them to make decisions for themselves - like @thomasbenson57 said, its an issue of education not access.

tldr: mulan is good because each musical number is so good and memorable, and the music is used to enhance the meta drama of the film

also the dramatic shift in the second act after "Girl Worth Fighting For" when they see the ravaged village (aka the realities of war) and the movie stops being a musical and starts being a war movie.

Some have cited this movie for why Mulan is bad (not enough songs) but I think this meta text makes the story better. Songs in musicals are supposed to show us how extremely the characters are feeling their emotions. But in musicals those emotions take on song form in a kind of fantasy setting.

The film takes a song that is naive, a group of soldiers who think that war is about getting the girl, and has it cut off as soon as they come across the village. This should transition into another song about how terrible war is and how tragic it is that Shang lost his father.

Instead the movie takes the audience out of the musical fantasy and into a war film. To me, the musical elements are fantastic, but when combined with the total absence of them halfway through the movie, they really shine.

I love Lion King, but the energy kind of starts to fall off after Nala finds Simba? Like the drama kind of falls apart. I think that Mulan has a more solid second half.

(though I do concede Scar is a much better villain than whats his face from Mulan because Simba actually knows Scar which creates more tension, and Be Prepared is one of the best villain songs of all time when Mulan's villain didn't get one at all)

cake should be eaten with 2 inch acrylic nails

Are we going to ignore the obvious? Fork and spoon makes sense, I can buy cake being eaten with either of those. But umm, knife? Chopsticks? 1) the knife could cut you and that'd be bad. 2) Chopsticks would be hard, the cake wouldn't stay together like rice does. That'd be really hard.

Others in this thread have already addressed specific points I've thought of (@Oliviabooth9 and @ellikara91) so instead I'll counter the arguments @sanjana makes in their original post.

tldr; TV and advertising are male dominated, male targeted fields and sexualization of and by women is done in this domain. Women and men sexualize for different reasons because of their different relationships with sex, especially sex in the public domain.

1) 20% of advertisements feature sexualized images.

• the statistic that I found was from a study done on an variety of magazines done for the years 1983, 1993, and 2003 which is not current.
• The statistic you cite is in regard to all sexualized images, not specifically breasts, but even then the industry around using sex for advertising is male dominated and male targeted.

In an article from 2020, researcher Cindy Gallop is quoted saying "Our industry is male-dominated, and men don’t see the huge potential in leveraging sex through the female lens to engage and communicate with the female consumer who is the primary target of everything our industry does." [1]

mini-tldr: Women's bodies are sexualized by those who direct tv shows and advertisements, usually for the consumption of men.

2) Celebrities like Niki Minaj and Megan Thee Stallion sexualize themselves for profit.

• In Megan Thee Stallion's words ""WAP" is a celebration of how fine all women around the world are. Why wouldn’t anyone want to celebrate positive female sexuality? I think that’s a more pertinent question to ask." [2]

mini-tldr: Talking about sexed up songs like WAP in isolation is harmful to the effort women, specifically black women rappers, are making to talk about sex in a way that is directed by women. Not all sexualization is for the same audience or the same purpose.

3) Women show their breasts to get out of traffic tickets.

• This one seems to be something one hears and assumes is wide spread. I'm not going to claim I know all the data on this issue but a cursory google search shows that more often than not the police officers are accused of coercing women to show their breasts [3][4] or groping women [5]. There were two cases where women showed their breasts to get out of tickets but in both cases it resulted in worse charges for the women [6] [7].

mini-tldr: women have been told that their bodies are sexually exploitable and men are told that they can assert their power over that.

(also most of these arguments have to do with sexualization in general, not specifically breasts)

[1] Does sex still sell in 2021?
https://www.bandt.com.au/does-sex-still-sell-in-2020/

[2] Megan Thee Stallion Wants More Women to Celebrate Positive Female Sexuality
https://www.oprahmag.com/beauty/skin-makeup/a33980855/megan-thee-stallion-wap-controversy-interview/

[3] Lawsuit: Cops made women shake breasts in traffic stop
https://amp.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/09/13/lawsuit-cops-made-women-shake-breasts-traffic-stop/90294702/

[4] Show Cops Your Tits To Avoid Traffic Tickets
https://chicagoist.com/2005/08/22/show_cops_your_tits_to_avoid_traffic_tickets.php

[5] A police officer in Texas appeared to grope a woman's breast during a traffic stop
https://www.businessinsider.in/international/news/an-austin-police-officer-appeared-to-grope-a-womans-breast-after-pulling-her-over-for-a-traffic-violation/articleshow/76882889.cms

[6] Woman Avoids Traffic Ticket By Flashing Breasts
https://nytrafficticket.com/woman-avoids-traffic-ticket-by-flashing-breasts/

[7] Woman 'flashes boobs at cop during traffic stop but gets busted when CRACK PIPE falls out'
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/woman-flashes-boobs-cop-during-7598790

tldr: people have begun to care more about the personal preferences of politicians which hinders substantive policymaking and increases polarization.

So I'm kind of arguing two things 1) American politicians have become celebrities and 2) thats a bad thing.

1. Politicians like AOC and Bernie Sanders (among others, these are just the two at the top of my head) appeal to people because of their personalities in addition to their platforms. The celebrity element is that people often care a great deal about AOC's personal Among Us play style in addition to (and maybe even more than) her political platform.

2. this is bad because it shifts politicians focus away from substantive policy making toward personal appeals that emphasize identity politics. This increases polarization. Instead of politicians being public servants they become celebrities with dedicated fan bases.

(I'm only relatively confident about this stance and I don't think AOC is necessarily the best example. Something just bothered me about AOC's Among Us stream and I think this is it.)

Yeah I agree! You make a lot of good points. Like how do we do politics in the time of mass media and echo chambers etc? I'm worried that because social media lets us see politicians as 'real people with real lives' we think we know them. As much as Donald Trump is in the public eye and I think I know him as a person, I don't.

And I think the celebrity angle works better for federal elections but as much as I like AOC and what she stands for she's the representative from New York and those are the people she's mandated to represent. I'm not trying to say she should stay in her lane or anything, but I just want to highlight that trying to appeal to voters at a celebrity level distracts from the job of doing politics.

I worry this warps the relationship between representative and constituent. But maybe this is unavoidable in todays political landscape.

tldr; Everyone is harmed by how society treats gender and sexuality, but decreasing that harm will come from productive discrimination not reinforcing the destructive discriminatory framework.

I understand the point that @sanjana is talking about. Conversations like these often turn into (as @sanjana has noted) one about "my horse is bigger than yours." This is harmful because it reinforces a world where we rank each others oppression/suffering and become distracted from the fact that, all those having that conversation are oppressed/suffering.

However, I do not want to encourage a false equivalency. I think it is more useful to acknowledge these kinds of statements and give them their proper weight in the discussion. For example, we can say straight people are discriminated agains. It is an important point that highlights a more inclusive, and I think mere important, issue. We, as a society, discriminate based on gender/sexuality and that includes straight people.

We should acknowledge the truth in this statement, but qualify it. Another example: women and men experience sexual violence, but women experience it to a higher degree. Therefore, we should be trying to change society so that we decrease overall sexual violence with special care towards women.

Discrimination also means the "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another." Equality won't come from color blindness or ignoring difference, but from trying to counteract destructive discrimination with productive discrimination.

I think fixing the discrimination issue will come from a radical reinterpretation of the word, instead of reinforcing the discriminatory framework that guides conversations like these Instead of framing conversations with "my oppression is worse than your oppression" or "I can hurt you because your position in society allows you to oppress me" we should realize that there can be productive discrimination.

By recognizing difference and focussing on the actual source of oppression (in this case based on gender/sexuality) we can actually do productive, reformative work.

I'm a political scientist so I like to make up new terms lol, but in hindsight it probably wasn't necessary.

The point I was trying to make was better put by @ellikara91 when they said "we should be careful not to underestimate any kind of discrimination, especially when discrimination can have the tendency to grow, just as we should recognise the different kinds and amounts of discrimination that exist and affect people's lives."

(To clarify what I mean by progressive discrimination. I'm thinking something similar to affirmative action but more nuanced, because I think simplifying the issue down to 'you're discriminated against or you're not.' Is too simple. I don't have a solution, but this framing doesn't sit right with me either)

I think in this scenario bullying probably fits the bill but I'm still not totally sure if there isn't already some way to give a name for "prejudice 'up'."

tldr; My favorite phrase: it depends

"Not all opinions matter" could also be said "some opinions don't matter." My immediate response is "who decides" and "when or in what context?"

What do we mean when we say matter? Is it that all opinions are important? Relevant? Informed?

In the context of public discourse (social media, the news, politics, etc), my opinion (ha!) is that society collectively decides which opinions matter though a constant process of approval/disapproval, promotion/demotion. But this is still a vague response to a vague claim.

To actually agree/disagree with this claim, I would need a bit more clarification, otherwise I would say some opinions matter more in some debates while marginalized opinions would matter more in others.

tldr; Voldemort is evil and fantastic, but Umbridge is realistic.

We could know someone like her in our own lives. She's duplicitous; she hides her anger under smiles, doilies, and pink...everything. Her narcissism and bigotry manifest as casual cruelty throughout her time in the Harry Potter universe.

She gaslights and physically harms her way to the top. First, she authorizes Filch to use medieval punishment devices to punish students (hanging them up by their ankles by shackles). Umbridge directly harms Harry when she gives him detention. The quill he uses to write "I Will Not Tell Lies" (about something he isn't lying about) is supplied by blood from his own hand.

Then, she constantly gaslights Harry, telling him and everyone around him that he is lying about the events of the triwizard tournament. She turns his classmates against the student body, empowering Malfoy in his hatred of Harry through the inquisitors squad. This behavior turns some of Harry's closest friends against him.

Last, her bigotry against muggles and non-human magical creatures causes her to hurt and fire Hagrid. Harry's close association with Hagrid (a half giant), Lupin (a turned werewolf), and Hermione (a muggle-born) is more incentive for Umbridge to essentially torture Harry.

These beliefs and behaviors are common ones we see in everyday abusers and abuses. Voldemort is purely evil, obsessed with purity and eternal life, and powerful but he is a fiction. His type of cruelty is not relatable because it is so incredibly rare. Almost everyone has an Umbridge.

I read this as saying that Voldemort is more iconic. He is a fantastic antagonist (in that he is the main road block to Harry achieving his goals) but after a while, as a reader, he isn't really...scary?

Voldemort was evil (and like you say, necessary for the plot) but he was outwardly evil and shunned from society. Umbridge hides her cruelty under her skin and in much more subtle tortures than Voldemort. She is accepted in civil society as a part of the reigning government.

True, Umbridge didn't kill anyone but she was never really forthcoming with her motivations. Voldemort was always clear that he wanted Harry dead. He never tried to bend Harry's reality, but Umbridge did.

This is the biggest difference between the two for me. Voldemort was straight up with his evil while Umbridge was vague. She had unclear motivations, unclear punishments, and an unclear persona (she was a toad dressed in pink).

So while I think Voldemort is scary in the Harry Potter universe (because he is mythical and all powerful - as seen by the use of "you know who" etc.), Umbridge is more interesting and scary to the reader because her villainy can reach into our own lives. It is a type of evil we might have experienced personally and therefore it can be felt more deeply.

tldr; It depends on the tap water (and bottled waters, etc.) that you're comparing it to.

I'll have to disagree. Fiji water tastes smooth and neutral in comparison to tap water. This is, in my experience, because tap water from different places tastes different. The water from Dasani, Arrowhead, and my home in California tastes different. Water from the tap at my Grandma's is different from the water at the cafeteria at school. Ultimately, I think Fiji water tastes good in comparison to most tap and bottled water.

I think there's an argument to be made that Fiji water isn't unique because it's specifically sourced from the Pacific Islands though.

I will have to agree here, from a story telling standpoint the Goblet of Fire is the best Harry Potter movie.

I think this is because this is the movie where the action finally begins to ramp up. This is the turning point between childhood and adulthood. The villain finally emerges as his most powerful and intimidating self, and Harry finds his best tool to fight him - love and the disarming spell. This is a satisfying culmination of the rising tension from the previous three books and an explosive jumping off point for the last three books.

This book/movie also has the best, most complete character development in my opinion. The relationships are the most complex that they get. The dynamic between the main trio grows beyond just school time friendship into life time bonds.

The introduction of Cedric Diggory is also a fantastic inclusion - he represents all that is good and honorable and his death truly motivates Harry in a way that threats on his own life never could.

Beyond the story telling the world building is fantastic and plants the seeds for further story elements like the tracking spells and portkeys. We gain a more full understanding of what it means to live in the wizarding world.

This book begins to complicate things too. So much of the story takes place before the school year and we truly get introduced to the complicated wizarding government. We are also introduced fully to the deatheaters. This sets the groundwork for Draco's character growth as well as Neville and Luna's.

I really like Prisoner of Azkaban but my biggest problem is when it comes to the time turner. It seems really out of place and is almost explicitly a plot device. I like the mechanics and the drama but it feels forced and unnecessary.

I do like the relationship that Lupin and Harry develop, but this movie is almost solely for Harry's development. His obsession (?) with thinking his dad is alive seems out of character given that he didn't really think about it too much until this movie. This story also leaves Hermione and Ron on the back burner in terms of character growth. They may have done something (besides providing Harry with the time turner) but if they did I can't remember it.

The Goblet of Fire doesn't place it's hopes in Harry winning the tournament; that's the whole point of Barty Crouch Jr./Mad Eye Moody. Crouch Jr. rigged the tournament so that Harry would win, his inclusion in the tournament at all is evidence of this - a way to get Harry away from Dumbledore right under his nose (Dumbledore wouldn't suspect the most paranoid person he knows).

I think it would be more appropriate to say that valentines day had become a capitalist holiday. While we still have a holiday to celebrate the traditions @sofiawells has described, it is undoubtedly an exploited market.

But even if it is capitalist, that doesn't mean that those celebrating it are disingenuous. Sure, the market tries to sell the holiday, but not everyone buys.

Human nature, by definition, is universal. Those who try to define human nature are making a claim that applies to each human in the effort to explain the flaws in human experience; war, crime, poverty, etc.

But a theory that explains everything explains nothing, which means that there is no analytical value in finally understanding human nature. If every scenario can be explained by a theory of human nature then we have no way to actually use that variable.

I'll put it another way. To enact real change in our society, namely through political institutions, we need to understand why people do things. We do this by finding indicators of human behavior. When x variable shows up we can be reasonably certain that y will happen. But human nature is a variable that always shows up. Humans are always being humans.

Claims about human nature can actually be incredibly harmful. If we think it is in man's nature to be aggressive then men are more likely to be aggressive. Not only that, but when we subscribe to a theory of human nature we believe ourselves invulnerable and we stop questioning the foundations of our world.

Human nature limits our worldview by blinding us to our own assumptions and facilitates behavior that is similarly limited.

A dynamic understanding of human behavior is needed to effectively engage in civic life; our understanding of others in the world needs to be built on an ever evolving image of the world and all its constituent parts (a process I believe is never finished, always in progress).

Sources:
Kenneth N. Waltz, 1959. Man, the State, and War, New York: Columbia University Press, Ch. 2

can you clarify what you mean by the Theory of Evolution? Do you mean the idea that everything evolves over time? Or specifically biological evolution?

ahh yes, I'd say there's a difference between empirical theories and philosophical theories. Empirical theories are based in observable data while philosophical theories are based in thought experiments and generalizations (that, itself, is an oversimplification but I think it gets my general point across).

But even then, at the end of the day, they're both theories, strong theories but ready to be proven wrong and both are inherently infused with human bias.

What universal human nature assumes is that 'x' philosophical claim about human nature was, is, and will be true without exception. Except...those theories were made by humans with bias.

The US has an absurdly long campaign cycle, so much so that politicians are always campaigning...and never legislating.

So many other democracies have legally mandated campaign periods:

"In Mexico, a 2007 law limited the length of campaigns. In Argentina, advertisements can begin only 60 days before the election, and the official campaign itself can start only 25 days after that. In France, the presidential campaign is generally only two-weeks long."

This would help limit the amount of big money in politics. The money flowing from big donors (which is difficult for small donors to sustain) is substantial, especially over the practically 2 year period for federal elections.

Some might argue that these long campaign seasons increase voter turnout. I think that there are a variety of reasons turnout increases or decreases. In this case, bombardment of political advertising (and campaigning) over long periods of time exhausts the voter and turns them off to politics.

(side note: there is a balance to voter turnout. You want enough so that the elected officials are accountable to the voters, but you don't want so much that those officials can't act. And too much voter turnout could be indicative of a problem - people only turnout when they care, when they're passionate, when there's a problem)

quote source: https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/21/450238156/canadas-11-week-campaign-reminds-us-that-american-elections-are-much-longer

I think it would be more appropriate to say that technology changes creativity. When we are given a certain set of tools we create a certain set of outcomes. When the tools change we make new things. This just means that the way we express creatively changes. The old ways atrophy and new ideas flourish.

tldr; there is a difference between exclusionary language and political correctness. Exclusionary language (nearly) prohibits specific groups from participating while excessive political correctness ignores important benefits of diversity.

--

Politically correct terms can go too far. Language that tries to be inclusive can actually be exclusive by being too nonspecific. If we say "people" instead of white people or black people we lose a lot of nuance and ignore the weight that those terms imply.

Those terms are likely to have negative and positive connotations/implications, but that is what makes conversation useful. If we are always worried or afraid of offending people, then we'll never take risks.

tldr; calling AAVE unprofessional is harmfully discriminatory and restricts the access of African Americans (Black Americans) to the workplace.

Access to language (dialects) and knowlege control who in our society has access to the economy. More professional positions are reserved for those who are more 'professional' and articulate. "Spanglish" and "slang" aren't allowed in the world place because they are believed to display a lack of expertise.

But this judgement is arbitrary and the way someone talks actually has no bearing on their ability to get work done and the quality of their work. AAVE is not unprofessional just as a southern accent isn't unprofessional.

In addition to having, as Anna described, an amazing set of iconic characters and properties, the Batman franchise is constantly relevant.

The dichotomy of Batman and Joker is iconic; order versus chaos. This can be seen in Batman's no killing rule and the Joker's "dog chasing it's tail" metaphor. I think this moral quandary is constantly relevant to popular culture. It's always interesting and easily accessible!

Nowadays people criticize the Batman character for getting all of his interesting traits from being rich, but I think this is also relevant and makes Batman's character more interesting.

He's both privileged and not. He's a white man born into wealth, but he's not a meta human. Paradoxically this makes him relatable and completely untouchable. As society becomes more critical and concerned with the uber rich, looking at Batman's identity is a compelling conversation starter.

It causes us to ask questions about his brand of justice. Is fighting crime the way to save Gotham? Would Batman be more effective as Bruce Wayne? Alternatively, how do we approach the ills in our own society? Is a rich man our path to salvation, or are there lessons we can learn from the Batman universe?

tldr; Batman is the best superhero franchise because it is constantly relevant and iconic.

I agree with this response, I think we need to reduce the amount of meat we eat while also reforming agricultural practices to be more eco-friendly.

Social media should ban users for bad behavior, not because of any legal rule or ethical or theological philosophy, but because it indicates a possible social violation that needs to be looked at.

I think back on an episode that John Oliver did a while back about public shaming. He made the claim that a limited amount of public shaming is appropriate and good because it reinforces the norms we want to see in society. Though he also states that too much public shaming has led to a cancel culture that is toxic to public life.

I qualify banning public figures, and ordinary users, as a form of healthy shaming. This isn't a universal rule though, because people will debate whether the behavior was actually 'bad.' But that debate is essential to healthy public life. If someone is called out for bad behavior it allows society to look closer - regardless of whether the banning was right or wrong.

Banning can be a powerful tool to establishing healthy public life and civic engagement.

Whether or not you agree with it, the death penalty still exists many places, as do life sentences. We often bar people from public spaces - parks and platforms alike, sometimes forever.

To compare banning individuals from a social media platform by comparing it to incarceration or capital punishment invites in the problems inherent in those systems of social reprimand. And the consequences of bad behavior at the coffee shop has the potential to be wildly different from bad behavior on twitter.

Social media gives users the potential to reach so many more people than you ever could in a coffee shop so the result of bad behavior can be amplified. Conspiracies like QAnon and the development of Trumpist rhetoric were cultivated in online spaces by specific individuals. Individuals like the former-president or someone's grandma have the potential to facilitate harmful spaces and create real physical consequences.

By eliminating the spaces for individuals to incite harm, we can also eliminate harm on the streets.

(I also understand that this logic can be used to limit speech that we could argue is 'good' and 'right' but I kind of have a response to that in my comment below)

If (nearly) everything can be an illustration, and illustration is not a discipline and therefore not art, then what is a non-illustrative art piece?

Put another way, if (nearly) everything is an illustration then how can that be a useful way of distinguishing between disciplines?

Do you mean that labelling a work an 'illustration' is inaccurate because illustration is too general?

If this is the case then it would seem to me that all art is illustrating something, and therefore the word can only serve as a descriptor of the purpose of art. It wouldn't serve as a detailed description of a work. (for example; automobile is to car as illustration is to music)

I agree that time is an abstract concept. It is a tool created by humans to make sense of a complex world. A way to make the immaterial passage of events into a conceivable, material thing.

I reject essentially all theories that rely on universalisms. To disagree with this opinion would be saying that time is a concrete and immutable element of reality that is divorced from human perception. But it isn't.

It is a method by which humans make sense of the world, like transmitting thoughts through spoken language. We have taken an idea that we cannot fully understand and concentrated it down to its most important elements. I think this is how we conceptualize time.

Some dogs have wiggles, and I like that. They are also soft and many like to be pet. The cats I have come across don't like to be pet. I like taking care of a dog because they engage with me back and cats don't tend to do that.

Though I understand why some people like cats, I will always prefer a dog.

I do not agree with this assessment. This argument glorifies the idea that intellectualism is devoid of emotion, passion, and pleasure. What makes us want to read a thriller book. The conflict. AKA: who is the killer? Or alternatively: will they get together, will our heroes succeed, how will this unique set of circumstances and our unique set of characters pan out?

Without this element of the story, authors disengage the reader. The heroes journey (or general story structure) requires change and with change the reader engages the unknown. In the parlance of your comment, all stories prey on the same ideas that gambling does. If the author can create anticipation, then they have engaged the reader and done their job as a story teller.

This can be done in different ways. Thriller novels engage directly in the fear created from anticipation. To be able to craft this fear requires talent and the ability to understand what makes the human mind disturbed.

So fundamentally I disagree with your definition of what intellectualism is. If we engage our minds, as readers, is that not innately philosophical? When we read a work that ignites our emotions, we learn something about ourselves.

We cannot separate our emotions from our intellectual pursuits. In fact those emotions are integral to engaging in intellectual material.

Where I think your argument might hold water is in gory movies. I think movies should use gore to give the viewer some kind of information about the story beyond the nauseating visuals.

But even when movies are devoid of this secondary purpose, there is some intellectual material there, namely the technical expertise required to create the effects.

so tl;dr: First, art is subjective and anyone can divine value from any work and second, intellectualism and passions are innately connected and both are important to a viewers experience of any work.

I don't think aliens exist, not how we think they do. If there is life out there, it probably isn't intelligent or not in the way we imagine they are.

I think there are too many variables that have to line up to create intelligent life like we have on Earth. But if the universe is as expansive as we theorize it is I guess I'll eat my words.

tl;dr
wearing school uniforms can be really good for students, but this can change depending on the context surrounding the uniforms, access to the uniforms, and the student.

I agree with this opinion because of my personal experience. I went to a public elementary school without a dress code and a private middle school that required school uniforms.

I was incredibly self conscious and nervous about my appearance in elementary. It caused me to be detrimentally concerned with my clothes. My class year had a lot of cliques and much of that was dependent on clothing.

When I went to middle school I was much more at ease because I didn't have to worry about my clothes at all. It allowed me to excel with a higher course load and, I believe, make better friendships.

There are some things that I think made my uniform wearing experience good:

• the dress code was lax compared to others I heard about. The clothes could be found at any department store but I heard of other schools that had their own stores because their uniforms were so unique. We were also allowed to wear any shoes and as long as our hair was a natural color we could dye it.

• we had free dress Fridays and spirit weeks ( we were allowed to use our clothes to express ourselves weekly, though I did notice my anxiety ratchet up on any kind of free dress days)

• I was only in private school for two years. One of my friends went to that school from kindergarten to eighth grade and expressed how difficult it was to figure out clothes once they got into high school. This may have been because they went to that (very small) school for nine years as well as the uniforms.

I didn't know any of this. I was curious and looked up the Bachelor/Bachelorette and it seems they have a similar problem.

Furthermore it seems like reality TV in general have problems with suicide, although Love Island seems to be the most prevalent offender. I wonder if we can decrease the toxic atmosphere of reality TV/dating shows or if the genre is inherently toxic?

This thread made me curious as to /why/ spicy food is good. It looks like even though spicy food hurts, that pain releases endorphins which make us feel good.

I think this makes logical sense but also spicy things (like hot sauce and peppers) are eaten alongside a lot of other foods I find good, like cheese and potatoes.

So I think there is an objective, scientific reason that spicy food elicits a positive reaction, but also subjective, taste-based reasons why spicy food is good.

Why Spicy Food Hurts So Good:
https://www.everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/why-spicy-foods-hurt-good/

Just based off of the title I would have to disagree. Microsoft as a company can't really be evil because it is not a person or entity with any agency. The actions of the company could be interpreted as evil I think.

I think what might make people say a mega corporation is evil has more to do with the shortcomings of capitalism (maximizing profit by commodifying labor) than it would the moral orientation or interpretation of any one company.

Its got frosting, berries, and what looks like a vanilla base. The only problem I could anticipate with a Minecraft cake is that it would be dry. But the cake is big which I interpret to mean it is a sheet cake. In my experience sheet cakes tend to stay moist.

...I really want to eat the Minecraft cake now.

The Minecraft cake is likely vanilla not chocolate therefore the Minecraft cake is probably not a lie.

If chocolate cake is a lie
If vanilla is the opposite of chocolate

Then:

Cake(portal) = chocolate => Cake(portal) =lie

Cake(Minecraft) ≈ vanilla => Cake(Minecraft) ≈ true

Gotcha 🔥

This is a very good point, now that I looked into it (beyond just looking at the cake) it seems like the cake is a sponge cake.

The recipe provides insight on the base of the cake that I hadn't considered. But I think the visual representation of the cake is relevant because there are no red berries in the recipe, only in the final product.

Therefore in Minecraft, the recipe doesn't totally reflect the finished product. I'll concede that I hadn't considered the actual ingredients when creating my initial response, but I do not think the recipe information trumps the visual impression the Minecraft cake gives.

ahh this is a good point, I was thinking that if we took the Minecraft cake and portalled it into the real world it would taste good. So I'm answering as myself.

But I also think that just because the Minecraft interface is blocks (low res) doesn't mean that the constituent parts of the items in the world are also blocky. I think that there are organic and inorganic items in Minecraft which implies that the actual structure of the item has little bearing on its function or consumption by the avatar.

Maybe the different physics/logic of Minecraft wouldn't translate well into the real world which is where I'd say @jape is right, but I think it would translate well into our physics/logic system which is why I think it'd taste good.

I have been thoroughly schooled 😔

I have done this multiple times. If the author couldn't get me to buy into the story by about three chapters in, I usually put it down. Sometimes Ill skip to the end and read the last sentence or page to see if the story eventually goes somewhere interesting but even then I'm reluctant.

Its the authors job to keep me reading so if I am not interested in continuing to read then the author has failed at their job.

I agree because dogs are only held in special status because we, as a society, classify them uniquely. If we kept cows as closer pets we might be more reluctant to eat beef.

There is a lot of debate around what exactly qualifies as a grilled cheese so as I define it: it is a sandwich consisting of two slices of bread that are toasted or grilled and have melted cheese in the middle.

Don't get me wrong, I love cheese and I love bread, but the combination is not goo. The cheese is generally rubbery by the time you get around to eating it, and the bread has become soggy instead of toasted. Depending on the cheese you use, the taste is also bland. I'll suffer through a pepper jack sandwich but count me out for Kraft Singles.

I've never had that before! Though not sure where I'm going to get marmite... I'll try it and see if it tastes any better to me :)

Ive always had them with butter on the outside, maybe ill try them this way and see whats up... Thanks for the suggestion!

o.o I haven't tried that before!

There is a lot of debate surrounding the artistic integrity of fan fiction and other derivative art like fan art and cosplay as legitimate art forms and pieces of art. The idea is that fan works are not original art and therefore not worthy of praise.

But I argue that most art is derivative - they have creative origins in other pieces of art. For example: the Mandalorian creators, Jon Favreau and Dave Filoni have cited spaghetti westerns and Japanese samurai films as artistic inspiration for the filming and themes of the Star Wars story.

This kind of relationship between works of art exists everywhere. In fact, I'd argue that truly original art is extremely rare.

Fan fiction and other derivative works shouldn't be excluded on some arbitrary sense of 'high art.' Fan works are valuable because people care about it. And I think thats enough.

I don't think fanfic etc should be made cannon either, and most fanfic authors dont make money off of their works and don't intend for their work to ever make it into the cannon. They usually upload for free and sometimes take commissions for specific prompts (usually alternate universe variations of existing properties or their original stories/characters).

I think where your argument is strong is in regard to fan art. I myself have done embroidery projects that include copyrighted characters, but avoid selling them incase I get copyright claimed.

What I want to emphasize is that Fanfiction etc should be seen as art. The creation of fan works requires a level of input from the artist that creates a new, but derivative, piece. This is participatory culture - if you know anything about 3D printing, it is my experience that a lot of 3D designs are crowdsourced and publicly accessible. I think this idea of participating collectively in an artistic endeavor applies to fan works and should be a reason they qualify as art.

Also, you might find interesting that, in my experience, there is a practice among fanfic authors to put a disclaimer before the story along the lines of "all characters, names, etc belong to the original owner, but [the author] is just playing in the sand box." This hasn't protected authors in the past from being pursued by IP owners, but it is a direct acknowledgment of the non-cannonness of fanfic.

yes of course, I agree with all of this - I think its also safe to point out that many fanfic authors, when asked to publish their content, have had to change names of places and people to make money off their works.

It hurts me to say, but 50 shades of grey is a perfect example. The author had to change the names from Twilight to new ones to be able to make any money of their story.

I think what you might be going for is that art is an abstraction. For example; language is an abstraction of our thoughts, there is some information that is lost in translation because we are taking our thoughts and transferring them into something another mind can understand.

In this way art is an abstraction of thought. Some of the ideas conferred are more direct than others but at the end of the day all art is a simplified version of an idea meant to communicate something to the viewer.

So I think it would be better to say that all art is abstract (in the philosophical sense) than "all art is symbolic."

@annahubbard makes a good point, I'm just not totally convinced that ghosts aren't just a social way to explain the unexplainable. I don't necessarily mean hallucinations but in general events or experiences that humans don't have the words to explain or understand.

Im not closed off to the existence of ghosts, It'll just take more concrete science to convince me I think.

I agree, though I think that there are new platforms that are being underutilized. AOC's Among Us twitch stream was oddly inspiring and engaging. It made me realize how much potential live streaming platforms like Twitch and YouTube go underused by todays older politicians

I agree, statues and monuments are supposed to represent values we want to remember. They emphasize parts of society and history that we want to bring to the forefront of society.

This is also relevant in the debate surrounding renaming buildings. If these individuals or names no longer represent the values we want to remember then it is our prerogative to rename them.

It is not erasing history. Taking down statues and monuments is a way for society to decide the history we will venerate. The difference between this and erasing history is that the history those statues represented are still accessible.

This isn't my specialty, but I find this reasoning interesting. Because an isolated event like a tree falling doesn't really impact me unless I am there to sense it like you have said. But for this to be a convincing argument beyond the tree example it would also have to be true for other, more complex events right?

If a man gets shot in my town, but nowhere near me, I don't sense it and therefore it is not part of my reality. But if that man is the president then my town would be put on lockdown. I would have to pass through checkpoints and see it on the news and hear my friends talk about it for weeks. So even though I did not witness the event firsthand I still experience its repercussions.

So while I agree that a tree falling in the forest doesn't make a 'sound' (because it has not been interpreted as sound by a human ear which can conceptualize it as such), I disagree that the tree falling is an event that is not part of reality. Just because the event is not perceived by me doesn't mean that it has not occurred at all. The event will have repercussions regardless of my sensing or lack of sensing it.

My example does include humans where the tree scenario does not but I don't think this weakens my point. An event that happens in isolation will likely, eventually, impact humans and they will eventually perceive it.

Lets say the tree falls and obstructs a river and on that river a town is built. Over time sediment and other debris build up along the fallen tree. Slowly the river gives less and less water to the town and the people begin to investigate. By the time the people observe the fallen tree and the buildup of debris, the tree falling event has long passed but that does not mean it has not occurred. The very presence of the fallen tree and the subsequent consequences suggest that there was an event that occurred prior to the humans' experience of it. This creates a logical reality that follows cause and effect (which can also be observed with a human present).

ahh yes that makes sense, for it to be categorized as a sound there has to be a being that can conceptualize a sound there to perceive it. That makes sense. Thank you for clarifying!

I disagree because of AWS/Apple/Google's responsibility as a service provider. Parler is an app that facilitates discussions that are explicitly antagonistic and prone to violence. As service providers it is these companies jobs to make sure they are monitoring potentially harmful traffic on their sites.

YouTube is required to monitor copyrighted and potentially harmful content. This is the legal responsibility of YouTube under the DMCA. Even though YouTube is not producing the content themselves, they are facilitating the exchange of that content.

The role of AWS/Apple/Google are slightly different in that they provide access to Parler, not just the content. But this doesn't change the fact that by supporting the app they are providing a communication network for potentially dangerous individuals.

Therefore it is well within their rights, and responsibilities, to remove Parler from their platforms.

I kind of disagree with this reasoning.

While I agree that I wish the FBI or some other intelligence agency had taken some kind of action, I think it is socially responsible that these companies took the actions they did.

Your response suggests that all legitimate power for policing public discourse lies with the government but I think that is dangerous. I believe that that kind of power needs to be dispersed among the various sources of power in society like the people (through voting, spending money, and conversations in the media), businesses (through their considerable economic power), and the government (through legitimate institutions like the FBI).

But overall the public and government have not acted in protecting society at large from this threat. Usually big business doesn't either, but here they did.

So in short I think these big companies have a legitimate claim to taking down Parler that is separate and equal to the claim that the government has to policing these types of things.

I'm going to argue that...kind of? Disclaimer; this political knowlege is purely US-centric so my examples and explanation might not map directly well onto other populist movements like those in Indonesia or Latin America. Overall trends in the last decade indicate that the world is becoming less 'democratic' and more populist and authoritarian. Populism is a contested term meaning that academics can't really decide on one definition, but we know it when we see it. But there are some trends when it comes to defining what populism is and one of them is the left/right divide.

Before I try to explain what I mean by this, I'll point out the identifiable features of a populist movement: an entity called 'the People,' an enemy called 'the Elites,' a leader or figurehead, and a grievance (usually economic). In a purely US context, both the Bernie and Trump campaigns fit into this category, and thats because they are both populist movements. Movements that are trying to find (or rediscover) a more genuine expression of what it means to be an American. What distinguishes the two is the expression of these populist drivers.

Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau argue that populism can be read and understood as a spirit of political engagement and within that we can have a left populism and a right populism. Right populism is what we see in the news a lot (especially on left leaning news sources like CNN or MSNBC). Removed from the US context, left refers to progressive ideas that try to establish civil debate that is necessary for democracy. Left populists only really blame the authority and the elites for the injustice they see. Right refers to an antagonistic division in a democracy that is destructive to the democratic process. Right populists blame elites and scapegoat other groups in their society, directing their ire in two different directions (up and down).

So when I say I kind of agree with the overall statement there is a caveat. The global rise in populism is concerning but overall speaks to the notion that people feel disconnected and disenfranchised. How we decide to address that disenfranchisement is what will characterize the new world order. We see plenty left populist movements, like Podemos in Spain. These movements can reassure progressives that populism doesn't just have to be destructive, but can actually spark a reinvestment in the genuine spirit of democratic ideals.

I’d say it depends, on the whole I agree that polarization is detrimental to democratic ideals and we see that now more than ever. And on an institutional level, democracies are degrading.

So I’ll change my position to “yes we are seeing less ‘democracy’ but it might not be as bad as we think” because there are popular movements that, instead of polarizing the electorate actually being marginalized groups together and reinvest in the fundamentals of democracy.

I’m a constructivist so when you say “democracy in its current form doesn’t work” I agree with you but with a caveat. I think democracy (and politics in general) is what we make it. So current political movements are exposing problems in democracy (and government in general) that are always there but have become more pronounced in recent decades. Politicians and businesspeople have always been linked, but now it’s out in the open and systemically supported (like built into political life) through neoliberal international economic policies, and direct legal links between corporations and politicians (in the US at least).

So I come from democracy (in the context of this opinion) from an ideological view. People are investing in The People now more than ever, but at the expense of democratic institutions (an institutionalist view). I hope that clarifies why I say “kind of” in my original statement.

Yes, I think we have to figure out how we're defining democracy, as institutions or as a set of behaviors. If we define it as a set of institutions then we have seen an increase in democracy around the world, but if we define it by behaviors then I think we have seen a decrease in democracy (but it could also signal a reinvestment in democratic behavior and ideals through left populisms).

I don't know what Trump is like in his personal life, but in public life he engages in abusive behavior which has degraded American public life. Particularly, I have noted that Trump gaslights his audiences a lot. He will tell blatant lies and then deny that he has told them, belittle the intelligence of people around him, in particular fellow politicians and adversaries, and he will deny basic facts while praising his audience.

This behavior has contributed to an America that lives in two realities - the reality crafted by Trump and the reality crafted by logic and observable fact. This has led to the degradation of public life in America and the degradation of democratic practices.

What does a 'for' opinion mean? and what does the question mean by matter?

All I can think in response to this is that it depends. A difference in opinion can range anywhere from liking the color orange to advocating for genocide. If we define 'matter' as the ability for an individual to not die then opinion doesn't matter in the former, but does in the latter. If we define 'matter' as promoting cohesion in the workplace, then opinion matters in both scenarios.

The idea this question is trying to address is that opinions are inconsequential until they're not, but this question is too vague to guide a specific conversation. I don't mean to offend, I'm just lost on what we're agreeing/disagreeing about.

Ahh I see, as the topic has been rephrased I understand better now. With the way this has been written now, and with your explanation I would say that I 'strongly agree.' Thank you!

Philosophically, a hotdog is a sandwich. It has two slices of bread around a piece of meat. But a hot dog is not a sandwich in spirit. instinctually, when you look at a sandwich you don't think "wow that hot dog looks tasty."

So basically a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't a square. A hot dog is technically a sandwich but in every other conceivable way, it is not.

Very much so yes, but not the rise of China in isolation. I don't think we can ignore the instability that already exists in the system that will exacerbate the tensions caused by China's rise - namely global inequalities brought about by the globalized economy and the 2008 financial crisis, internal conflict in the hegemonic states of the West (the US and Europe), and growing discontentment world wide with the liberal world order.

As the hegemon, US behavior of paranoia and aggression will also increase instability as China rises. So while China increases their regional control in the ASEAN countries and Africa, America will attempt to repair their international reputation after four years of Trump. This will give room for China to expand economically, militarily, and culturally. China and the US will slowly reach power parity which will continue to exacerbate tensions. If US paranoia and aggression persists, great power war will occur in the next 50 years, though I do think thats an over-estimate.

Interestingly I dont take an offensive realist approach necessarily. I come from a constructivist view that actors in the system create the system they act in. In my view china is not looking to dominate the system in the same way that the US has. China has a character and history that (in my understanding) supports a "command and delegate approach," as opposed to the US "control and assimilate" approach. Given recent anti-democratic/anti-American sentiment, I think that there might be more support for the rise of China than we expect, especially given China's regional economic foreign policy. It is much more hands off than the US equivalent.

China also has a deeper historicity when compared to the US. Americans suffer from a short-termism that isn't necessarily as prevalent in the Chinese political consciousness (im not making a generalization about Chinese people, but the Chinese in the abstract with regard to their political systems, and in reference to the government itself). Therefore, I don't think Chinese foreign policy will be as aggressive or shameless as the Americans at the turn of the 20th century.

I also don't think we're falling into a regionally multipolar system but a bipolar system with some middle power regions. I may be ignorant of some aspects of the BRICs coalition and their power relative to the US/China dynamic, but I don't think the BRICs coalition has as much hegemonic potential (at least yet) when compared to China and the US example. Hegemony isn't just economic strength, but total strength: military, diplomatic, economic, cultural, etc. I don't think the BRICs countries are as strong militarily or culturally as the US or China (once again, at least yet).

I think this opinion presents an interesting and fresh view of the US president but there are some points I disagree with. I agree that decreased active military presence abroad is a good thing but I wouldn't say his tactics led to a diffusion of tensions at the international level. Just because Trump stopped pursuing US military hegemony doesn't mean that the US has stopped being the hegemon. The US has, for better or worse, held a top position in the international system for a hundred years and with that comes entrenched practices and responsibilities. What Trump did was take a sledgehammer to a Jenga tower; methodical techniques were thrown to the wayside when Trump opted for the easiest short term solutions.

For example, the extraction of US forces from Syria. To maintain cooperation and good standing, states need to telegraph their movements. This displays trust to allies and prevents miscommunication in tense relationships, like those between the US and Syria. When the US pulled out in 2019 it caused confusion on the ground and on the international stage; citizens didn't know who the military equipment belonged to - the Russians, Kurds, Turkish? It also came as a shock to allies and transmitted a message of US inconsistency, secrecy, and insincerity. The consequences of this action has led to chaos at all levels, even though it's not felt directly by anyone not from Syria.

Trumps emphasis on the economy has also been misguided, led by short term gains at the expense of long term stability. Take for example the renegotiation of NAFTA into the USMCA. Most changes were cosmetic, and on the international level they only portrayed an image of a belligerent and unrepentant American exceptionalism. I would also be hesitant to praise Trump's economy. In part because of an instinct I have about the man (his incompetence and insincerity rank high on the list of characteristics I attribute to him). While his economy might be better on paper, the behavior it inspires will lead to a worse future. It exacerbates inequalities in the American, and global, economy by benefitting wealthy individuals disproportionately.

Where I do agree with you is that the effect that Trump has had has not been all bad, but its not through any effort or policy of Trumps. Indirectly Trump has exposed the fault lines in American politics, life, and social structure. He is a figure head of all that is bad to some, and all that is good to others. He has shown that so much of democracy is norms, the behavior of a democratic politic that keeps democracy alive. His presidency has brought racial tensions to the forefront of American life and, in the wake of the Capitol Insurrection, shown how serious people are in these beliefs. This kind of anti-democratic behavior cannot be ignored, it is at the core of party politics.

It also exposes the hegemonic tensions at the international level. While treating China with more aggressive trade policies sounds righteous, I think it will lead to large scale conflict in the future. China is undoubtedly a rising power with an incredibly strong economy on par with the US. The Obama administration saw this with their foreign policy 'pivot' to Asia. What China doesn't have (yet) is the extra oomph of cultural hegemony. Blue jeans and Coca Cola (with a side of Rambo badass) define the American presence abroad. Perhaps we are starting to see this with Tik Tok. This is directly reflected by China's foreign economic policy: the Belt and Road Initiative.

It spells trouble that the US is becoming more aggressive. Even though some policies indicate deescalation, I think it would be more prudent to read the retreat from Syria as regression. So the US is becoming more aggressive, less trustworthy, and China provides a more stable alternative. This is, in large part, the fault of Trump's gung-ho foreign policy.

Trump is far from making any deliberately 'good' foreign policy decisions, and instead better serves as the shrieking canary in the coal mine.

Some sources if you'd like to see what I referenced:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/why-the-u-s-decision-in-syria-has-left-some-of-their-allies-anxious

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2018/10/02/5-things-to-know-about-usmca-the-new-nafta/

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-10-30/trump-s-economy-really-was-better-than-obama-s

Adventure time is a creation myth and a coming of age story. There are likely a million video essays on youtube about this. Overall the story follows 14 year old Finn and his magic dog brother Jake as they do hero work in the land go Ooo. Over the course of the series Finn matures in his relationships, learning to appreciate his friends even when they don't fit his narrow expectations of who they should be. Take Princess Bubblegum. As the knight in shining armor, Finn expects to save the princess and get the girl. But it is quickly established that Bubblegum is way too old for Finn and sees him as a brother (literally Bubblegum is centuries old). Finn does not pass Go, he does not collect $200. By the end of the first arc Finn has learned that love takes many forms, so while he loves Bubblegum, his romantic attraction to her is shallow compared to the deep well of their friendship.

These kinds of revelations (some more involve; fear, death, expectations, loneliness, fatherhood etc.) dovetail nicely with the lore of the show. Finn is the reincarnated entity of creation, preservation, and heroism. Our whole cast of characters are in some way reincarnations of the universe. There are four elemental beings; ice, fire, slime, and candy. But there are also agents of the universe like Finn. Where Finn is preservation and heroism, the Lich is an agent of desecration and decay. We also have fundamental characters like Prismo who controls the flow of time, the Cosmic Owl who controls the cosmos, and Death who presides over...death.

This list is not exhaustive when it comes to the magic system and overall lore of Adventure Time but I'll finish with the characters that are central to the final conflict; Magic Man, Grob Gob Glob Grod, and Golb. Yes, I'm sorry, it's confusing, they're brothers. These three characters are Martians. Magic Man is disgraced and sent to Ooo for war crimes, Grob Gob Glob Grod is a four headed god character who presides over the rule of Mars with a statue of Abraham Lincoln, and Golb is the destroyer of worlds.

These characters have wild premises and wild deliveries of plot points. The overall tone of the show is lighthearted but sincere. The animation is zany but at times disturbing, as is the music. But overall it links back to a rich lore. All of these elements can attract young and old alike.

If you want to check out what any of these characters look like, or more about their backstory heres the wiki:
https://adventuretime.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Characters

I study international relations and there are three (four-ish) ways of conceptualizing power dynamics within the system. Because the system is anarchic (without a central, dominant power) the individuals within the system workout the power dynamics within them. These power dynamics are called 'polarities.' So we have unipolar, bipolar, multipolar, and apolar.

Unipolar: think the US domination of culture, economics, and politics in the 1990s and just following WW2.
Bipolar: the Cold War, anyone will tell you that the Cold War is the best and most clear example of bipolarity. Two great powers (the US and Russia) essentially equal in military, economic, and social control over the whole system.
multipolarity and apolarity: for this we can think about the interwar period (the 1920s and 30s). We have more than two countries with relatively equal power, that's multipolarity. We can look at this same situation from another angle. Instead of equal powers, there is no one dominant power hence a- polarity (without polarity).

The relevance this has to this thread is that, in my view, multi/apolarity, bipolarity, and unipolarity are cyclical and usually reset society back at a hierarchical system. So while people become discontent with the hierarchy now, they will even the playing field (to multipolarity) until it shifts back to a unipolar order.

Actors within the system (countries, citizens, club members) decide what they want the hierarchy to be, and when they decide thats not working, new powers and hierarchies will rise. There will always be a hierarchy, except in transitions.

"Video games" refer to a wide ranging medium, and "good" can be measured in so many different ways. References to "video games" usually refer to COD in popular media. Even with concerns about violence, I wager that video games help with response time. Video in general can help with learning (watching a sports game can help improve skills later when playing the game itself). Video games are also an artistic medium that can expose users to new stories told in new ways. It puts the user in the uncomfortable position of having to make the decisions that are usually shoved off onto the characters on screen.

Video games can also be indirectly good for you through their benefits towards society. Strategy games like StarCraft help computer scientists develop better AI which makes the technology we use more responsive and...better. It was video game technology that helped create the technology used to film the Mandalorian (replacing green screen with dynamic LED projections). This means that productions won't necessarily have to fly thousands of miles to film on set, saving money and jet fuel therefore benefitting the environment..

So video games can be good for your personal development, but also the development of arts and science. Ultimately it is an amazing contribution that can be good for humanity.

DeepMind’s AlphaStar: A Grandmaster Level StarCraft 2 AI:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtlrWblOyP4

Why the Mandalorian uses Virtual Sets over Green Screen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufp8weYYDE8

I only recently got into Star Wars, and that was because of the Mandalorian. Upon rewatching the entire Skywalker Saga from start to finish I picked up on something that makes them so charming. Despite the plot holes, repetitive themes, and wooden dialogue the movies have a charm that attracts us to them. The universe is expansive and deep but what makes them fun is that they are campy.

In the original trilogy the dialogue and action is stilted but it has an undeniable heart and sincerity. Something about it says that the actors are having a good time. This is an energy that is also present in the Mandalorian. I liken the dialogue and script to a video game because it is so awkward. But its awkward in a way that is endearing. The jokes and sincerity work because the delivery of the script, plot, and jokes are self aware.

This self awareness and delivery is the through line that connects the original trilogy, the prequel trilogy, and the Mandalorian...