thomasbenson57

TLDR - Privilege is never fully earned, and it relies so much on a social structure that often favors white men over others

Whilst many people undoubtedly work for the things they have, I don't think that it cancels out the idea of privilege.

A white man can be born into an incredibly poor family, and be disadvantaged in this aspect. But he will still have white and male privilege that offer him advantages over white women and anyone from another ethnicity. He still will see himself represented far more in the media than anyone else.

The important thing to note is that we shouldn't feel guilty about the privilege we are afforded by society and its history. Instead we should recognise its existence, and work to ensure an equal society for everyone. And it does not take away from the achievements of those who are privileged, and have worked for what they earn. It just simply acknowledges that other people might do everything the same and not reach the same success due to factors outside of their control like race.

TLDR - Colonialism has massively shaped the narrative of our curriculum - this should change

It wasn't until the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests that I learned of, and considered the way in which the British curriculum is structured and taught. Indeed, looking back at my time in school, it was clear that, whilst we dealt with colonialism and its consequences, the lens in which we considered it was still often that of the colonizer.

Take for instance, English Literature. In A Level, we had to study Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness and consider its critiques of colonialism, and where it also perhaps shared a colonist mindset. This was a compulsory novel, whilst Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart was only a suggested reading. One tells the perspective of the colonizer, who feels some guilt at his part in the act, whilst the other tells the perspective of a member of the Nigerian Igbo clan dealing with the effects of colonialism. Both are books with great critical acclaim, and yet because one is seen as a 'classic' (deemed a classic by cultures with deep histories as colonizers), it is made mandatory.

This is of course just one anecdotal example, and yet I think many of us will have similar educational upbringings if we take the time to look back. History, Ethics, English Literature - these subjects are so often taught from colonist viewpoints, and not enough attention is given to recognizing that fact and bringing more diversity to the curriculum.

The curriculum seems to almost assume a whiteness from its students, choosing to teach subjects from the white-western perspective (even as it criticises that perspective) perhaps because it assumes a shared cultural history with that perspective. But the reality is that Britain is a culturally diverse country, and many of its inhabitants have a shared cultural history with the perspective of the colonized. The curriculum should do more to reflect that.

The biggest indicator in my recent memory that this change needs to happen was the discussion around Winston Churchill during the BLM protests. The discourse began around statues and then moved to him as a person. All over the country, white British men and women were proclaiming him a hero, who was instrumental in our victory in World War 2. Even my a few of my liberal minded friends were in agreement. Of course, whether through genuine or willful ignorance, these people were ignoring Churchill's involvement in the Bengal Famine of 1943, or his questionable (to put it mildly) views on race. It became clear to me that we are taught only the good of these British men's deeds, with the curriculum leaving out the incredibly problematic aspects of their careers.

A curriculum should offer a broad education, and thus diversifying and decolonising it will never be a bad thing.

TLDR - We should listen to our bodies, and our bodies are telling us that dairy should not be a staple food

It's certainly interesting how prevalent dairy is in many human's diets. Of course, we feed on breast milk when we are infants, and this provides us with all of the nutrients and antibodies we need (through the diet of our mother). Yet many of us maintain a somewhat dairy rich diet past infancy.

Looking back at human history, it's easy to see why. When sourcing food was still took up a lot of our time, milk was an incredibly useful food to have. Many docile animals, such as cows, horses, and goats produced somewhat steady supplies of milk, and thus long lasting food (through the creation of cheese). And so dairy was important to us when food was limited and we didn't have the luxury of choice.

Now however, many of us do have the luxury of choice when it comes to the food we consume, and I think a long history with dairy has been mistaken for a necessity for dairy. In fact, approximately 65% of the population has some degree of intolerance to lactose past infancy.

Our bodies are telling us we should cut it down, and we should listen to it. Health benefits aside, the meat and dairy industry are doing untold damage to the environment, as is one of the leading causes of climate change - something we should all be very concerned about.

TLDR - It depends on the course

I do agree that often times, group work can lead to an uneven share of work between members of the group, and lower grades being given despite someone putting in more effort than others. In this sense it is entirely unfair that one person's inaction should lead to a lower grade that could ultimately affect your final result.

However, this is dependent on the course that you are studying. I did English Literature at university, and some of it was marked based on group work. Whilst I was lucky to have a good group, a friend of mine had the misfortune of working in a group whose members did not pull their weight, which led to her being given a low grade, despite her doing her part.

On the other hand, I am doing a MsC in Digital Media Production, and I fully expect to be graded on group work. Degrees like production, management etc should be graded on how well you work as a team. If someone in the team is not pulling their weight, then part of it is learning how to motivate them. Should they not do as they're asked, then that's when you can take it further and email a course leader.

So I think ultimately, the frequency of group work should depend on the degree. Course leaders should examine how important skills gained by group work are to the degree, beyond just 'working well as a team'.

'The customer is always right' is a statement often misunderstood by customers, referring to product rather than customer service.

I've worked a lot of years in retail, and I do often hear the phrase 'the customer is always right' when I'm telling someone they can't have a refund or can't get a discount. And it always makes me laugh a bit when they pull it out.

The phrase, at least to my understanding and the understanding of every store manager I've ever worked for, refers to the idea that whatever increases profits is the way forward.

It refers to the idea that if, for example, you sold apples and oranges, and the apples sell far better than oranges, you should stock apples and focus on that. The customer is right in so far as they know what they want to buy, and if a shop wants to make a profit, it should accommodate that. If you go against what customers want to buy, then customers will not buy.

The term can also refer to the idea that retailers should try and be as accommodating as possible to customers who have complaints, as ultimately it is their business you want, and so doing something that will lead to a loss of that business is the wrong thing to do.

However, I absolutely agree that the common idea of 'the customer is always right' in reference to 'do what I want' is a misconception that many hold. I do often enjoy pointing that out to particularly rude customers.

TLDR - With climate change being the largest threat to the planet and our future, and people unwilling to give up their comforts, synthetic meat is the way forward for both pleasure and the climate

Climate change is a very real threat, and one that is impossible to deny (even if some try). One of the largest contributors to this is the meat and dairy industry, which account for roughly 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Whilst vegetarianism and veganism are on the rise, with a more environment-conscious society, ditching meat is never entirely is never going to happen. People have cheat days, or only go veggie for January, or fail at the first sight of a burger. It is clear that the lure of meat is too much for many, which suggests that telling people to stop is an impractical solution.

The solution is synthetic meat, and the more we invest into its research and production, the more viable it becomes as a true replacement for meat.

Its benefits are many; it uses far less land, no animals are harmed or exploited, and it is far more sustainable than an industry that is already doing irreparable damage to the planet.

The cons of synthetic meat are similar to many new technologies, in that the lack of interest and adoption means prices are high and public trust in the products are low (the idea of lab grown meat puts many off).

I believe the more we invest into synthetic meat, the sooner we have an opportunity to reduce, and maybe one day completely remove our reliance on the meat industry.

TLDR - I don't really agree with the idea that it is less intelligent people being given a platform, because I don't believe it is a matter of intelligence.

I think all humans are prone to being taken in by radical ideas that fly in the face of common sense. Whilst it may be that people such as anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists now have a platform to speak, it is also important to acknowledge the role that the platform has in shaping those opinions.

The power of social media and the bubbles of opinion it is destined to create, makes it incredibly difficult to get a wide range of opinions, and to know that you aren't getting a wide range of opinions. We assume that as most people have social media, then what we see on social media must be a broad spectrum of opinions, but this is not the case. In fact, it is one of the reason's for Parlia's existence, as often all we see are polar opposite opinions with no in between.

I don't think intelligence plays a part in it. I think conspiracy theorists are born from a place of cynicism, such as a natural distrust in the government, or things we do not understand. The platforms that these people now have to speak on means that they will now also find more like-minded people, and suddenly the strength of their conviction will grow.

I think a better term for it would perhaps be uninformed. Information from reputable sources lies at the heart of breaking down these theories, but even then we are always going to see cynicism towards any source that refutes a deeply held belief.

TLDR - Whilst fairy tales do often deal with unrealistic ideas of relationships, I think most people who grew up with them acknowledge them as just fairy tales, to the point where the term 'fairy tale' refers to something unrealistic and imaginary

The thing about fairy tales is that they are subject to growth and change as time moves on. Our vision of fairy tales as being the stories told in Disney movies is inaccurate, as these stories are much much older and have been through many changes over the centuries.

The morals of Little Red Riding Hood have been through many revisions over the years. Sexual readings of earlier versions could see the text as a warning against sexual predators, as there are certain connotations of sexual violence. However, [later versions added the woodsman saving Little Red Riding Hood] (https://fairytalescriticaleditionlu.weebly.com/the-evolution-of-fairy-tales-and-how-they-will-last.html#:~:text=The%20more%20a%20single%20story,were%20because%20of%20oral%20tradition.), suggesting that a lack of trust should not be blanketed over every stranger. Of course, in today's climate, this tale certainly has negative connotations, but there is absolutely no reason why a new retelling of the story can be made.

Fairy Tales deal with the magical and improbable. The very beginning 'Once upon a time' is an immediate marker that the story contained is an improbable one of fiction and imagination. There is no reason why this well known verbage would have its meaning dramatically shift in the cultural consciousness, and people would begin to strive to achieve the things contained within the tales.

However, I do think there is certainly something to be said about gender roles in fairy tales. Their settings of a fantastical medieval period mean that the women are often princesses waiting for their prince, or some variation of those gender roles. But as I previously mentioned, I don't think there is anything stopping new retellings of these tales with the gender roles stripped out. Disney has certainly made great attempts recently to make strong female characters that anyone, male or female, can look up to, even if it has tended to stick within the archetypes of princess and prince.

TLDR - Nazi experimentation and research contributed far less to medical advancement than is thought. In reality it was just useless torture and a waste of life

There is a misconception that important medical advances are the result of the horrific Nazi experimentation during the holocaust, when ethics were of little concern. Yet many modern researchers have denounced the scientific validity of the experiments.

Firstly, it must be considered that the experiments and the politics of the the Nazi's cannot be separated. The doctors were working for the 'glory of the Nazi Party', on people they considered less than human. When such thinking is at the heart of the experiments, the validity of the results cannot be thought to be without prejudice, and without some skewing of the data.

Secondly, the subjects were not representative of a healthy population. They were incredibly malnourished, overworked, psychologically tortured individuals, all of which would have a profound impact on the results of the experimentation. This would make the research useless in forming treatments for the public.

Whilst the debate of 'if the Nazi experiments produced advancements, would it be ethical to use them' is a valid one, the key word there is 'if'. It is not widely accepted that much good has come from them specifically rather than elsewhere in the medical field.

TLDR - Cinema is not dead. There will always be a demand for going and seeing a movie, even if streaming sites have heavily dented this.

Whilst movie theaters are certainly in decline (especially after the pandemic), streaming and at-home options will never fully replace them. This is because the TV experience can never replicate a fully kitted out cinema, and the novelty of going to one.

If just seeing the film itself is your only interest, then it would make sense to prefer streaming over going to cinema. However many people still treat the cinema as a special event, in which going out and experiencing it on the big screen is just as important to the experience as the film itself.

It is also really up to the production studios themselves as to whether they want to let cinema die. Obviously if they all choose to release on streaming platforms as well, then cinema will dwindle vastly. However, big box office hits like Marvel movies and Star Wars are unlikely to negate cinemas because every year they smash box office sales. And whilst yes they would keep all of the profits if they just release on Disney Plus, the profits would be vastly smaller.

I greatly disagree with the general point you're making here. I'm not a fan of the royals, and think that far too much importance and ceremony is put on an outdated symbol of wealth and superiority.

But this hyper-focus on whether or not a human being's feelings of suicide are 'justified' or 'fair' because they come from a place of privilege just seems a bit ridiculous. And reducing depression and suicidal thoughts down to teenagers who don't have 'cool-enough shoes' feels a little...insensitive to the realities of both the depression experienced by teenagers, and the depression of Megan.

I'm fully aware that Megan is coming from a place of privilege, and millions of people without that privilege suffer from suicidal idealization, but also millions of people don't have to suffer a sustained and constant hate campaign from the tabloids.

And yes she did marry into the royal family, but using that to put the blame of the horrific bullying she's been subject to onto her feels akin to victim blaming.

I do agree that the interview was a pretty questionable choice. But also when there is so much negative news surrounding you, there's probably going to be a lot of anger and wanting to change the narrative there, so I can sort of understand it.

TLDR - The climate of the world today, with lockdowns, surveillance etc has led to a resurgence of references to George Orwell's 1984, a book which I imagine many who do so have never read. Instead, the terms and themes which have entered the collective consciousness are brandished against any type of government oversight that we do not agree with.

George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984 is one that really needs no introduction. Even those with only the most passing knowledge of the book will recognize terms such as 'Big Brother' to refer to a surveillance-state, or even just recognize some of the surface connotations that mentioning "1984" has. It has quite firmly cemented itself in the cultural consciousness.

The wave of lockdowns in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic has brought forth fresh comparisons between the dystopian world of the novel and our current government enforced locked down society. What is quite clearly an attempt to save lives and stop the virus from spreading is seen as an evil form of control, in the same vein as the antagonistic government from 1984.

And yet, I would argue that the majority of people who chuck accusations of the government becoming like the one seen in 1984 have never actually read the book. Instead, some of the terms and themes contained within the book have transcended the pages and entered our cultural language. We use and understand terms like 'Big Brother' because we live in a society that boiled down the concept from the book into a reality TV Show that features little to no privacy through 24/7 surveillance.

I'm not suggesting that there is something wrong with this. The themes of the novel have quite clearly resonated since its release, particularly in an era when trust in the government seems to be low. It is a testament to the timelessness of these anxieties, and a stark reminder that a novel written in the context of the USSR [1] would perhaps find even greater material to criticize in today's always-online world.

Instead, I find it interesting that a book can be so heavily referenced and remain so culturally relevant, when it so often tops the list of books that people pretend they have read. [2]

And just to prove my point, you should probably know I've never even read 1984 either.

REFERENCES

1. https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/orwells-1984-how-misread-classic/

2. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/mar/05/uk-reading-habits-1984

TLDR - Messaging features such as 'Last Active' and 'Read' are harmful, and cause more problems than they solve due to creating unrealistic expectations of communication

Communication has vastly changed with the advent of social media and mobile phones. Most messaging services that require an internet connection allow you to see when a person was last active, when they have received your message and when they have read that message. Whilst on the surface these seem like handy tools, I believe they cause more problems than they solve.

These features play into paranoia of being ignored and unwanted. They provide an indicator that tells the sender that, for all intents and purposes, the recipient should have read the message, and if they haven't replied then it must mean they are ignoring them. Gone are the days it seems, when there was an understanding that messages should be replied to when the recipient wishes to. There is an expectation that we should be in constant communication with each other, and that anything other than that is in someway a slight.

As someone who is 'notoriously bad' at replying (in the words of many people), I often fall short in this area. And yet, I am someone that doesn't like to chat for chatting's sake. What might be seen as me 'ignoring' someone, is more a case of not wishing to reply just yet, for a multitude of different reasons. I might be busy, I might not feel like chatting right now, or I might just not be on my phone. But the immediacy of mobile messaging, particularly when combined with 'last active' and 'read' features has created a sense of guilt if messages are not replied to fairly quickly.

It is a story I'm sure we've all heard from friends or perhaps ourselves, in which meaning is inferred from someone being active "5 minutes ago" but the message was sent an hour ago. It must mean they don't like them, perhaps they are being ghosted. These are conclusions that always seem to be drawn before more innocent ones are considered.

You can opt out of having an active status, and in some apps can even opt out of having read receipts. But by default they are on, suggesting that this is the paranoid, knowing a little too much, world that the social media giants want us to participate in.

TLDR - If digital platforms are a threat to illustration, then it just highlights that classic illustration was not as democratic as art should be

This is argument of course only works if there is a separation between illustration and digital illustration, which I personally do not see.

However, I think free digital platforms such as Krita and Inkscape have democratized illustration, and that is only ever a good thing. Suddenly, anyone who has a drawing tablet (or even a mouse) has the opportunity to try illustration. And because it's digital illustration, the user has access to a wide variety of brushes, colours, tools, and the ability to undo and mess around with their work.

Having a cheap drawing tablet and Krita has frequently revitalized my love of drawing. I used to always draw when I was growing up, but as I got older and lazier and frequently without supplies, that creativity dwindled. Purchasing a drawing tablet meant that whenever I got the urge, I could just plug into my laptop and get drawing. Having that safety net of undoing, or starting again in an instant gave me further motivation to draw.

I also don't think that artistic mediums are really ever in danger of dying. Every medium has its pros and cons, and I think artists have the desire to use whatever medium suits their art, regardless of how easy or modern it is. Sure, illustration jobs might now require software knowledge, but that's the blame of a digital world, not the digital platforms themselves.

Personally, I think using prayer as a form of therapy is not the best choice, for religious people or otherwise. I think it can definitely supplement it, if you are religious, but when it comes to mental health, we should focus on researched methods.

Prayer can be comforting, just knowing that there's something bigger than us, listening to our problems. Yet often (every time in my past), there is no reply, no words of wisdom that might help with what we're dealing with. If you were to go to therapy however, you would have a trained professional who specializes in mental health, listening and responding to what you say. This seems more important to me at least.

I think my biggest issue with praying to help with mental health is seeking reassurance and comfort. I have anxiety that displays Pure OCD type thinking (in which compulsions are mental rather than physical), and so praying, if I believed in God, would be a form of reassurance. However in this circumstance, that is the opposite of what I should be doing. By seeking reassurance, I am getting trapped in a loop of having a troubling thought, praying for reassurance, and then getting a troubling thought again, as opposed to confronting the thought itself.

This is obviously all speaking from personal experience. I am not sure what it would do for others, but for me at least, prayer would worsen my mental health, rather than help it.

I think nostalgia about a certain song/place/activity is often intertwined with the state of mind we are in. Whilst this can be a positive thing, I do think we often overlook what a fondness for nostalgia is telling us about our present state of mind

I am a sucker for nostalgia. I will hear a song and immediately be transported to years ago, or I'll play a game and remember when I went out to buy it at 15. These are often happy moments, and sometimes it can feel just as it did back then.

However, I think nostalgia for say, a song, can often be confused with nostalgia for our state of mind back in that moment. For example, I might hear a song and think "ah I remember being sat in a field with my friends when I was 17 listening to this". And whilst yes my nostalgia is triggered by that song, I am actually nostalgic for how I felt in that moment; the peace of it all, the lack of responsibilities, and if I'm honest the lack of mental health problems.

Whilst this can be a good motivator to look at our current moment and assess why we do not feel the same now as we did back then, I think this often does not happen. Nostalgia is taken at surface value, and often we can get too wrapped up in looking at the past, chasing that nostalgic hit, instead of focusing on the present and fixing what we have now.

TLDR - It depends on the purpose/production of the documentary. If it is for entertainment then it is unethical. If it is informative or shining a light on an injustice then it can be seen as ethical

I think the perfect example of this is Netflix's Making a Murderer documentary series, as I believe it's second series completely undermined the first series.

In the first season, the documentary makers highlighted the case of Steven Avery, who is in prison for murder. Throughout the 8 episodes, it documented his tale from before his arrest, all the way through his trial and eventual conviction. It aimed to highlight how the trial was a complete shambles, and the clear abuse of authority of both the police force and the prosecutors. It was a shocking watch, and I think it showed us some of the corruption that can happen at all levels of the law.

The second season however, boosted by the success of the first, turned the documentary into a big-budget entertainment series. Whilst it still claimed to be a documentary, it was clear that the producers were trying to make it as entertaining as possible. It felt less like it was trying to lay out the facts, and more like it was trying to keep the viewer on the edge of their seat. In the end, I think this undermined its integrity, and the ethics of what it was doing.

So I think it ultimately depends on the documentary. A lot of families of victims want to take part as a way of spreading the word about what happened to their relative. But of course this is not always the case, and often the victim is taken advantage of for entertainment value, and this is when it becomes unethical.

TLDR - Leeds and Reading festival are still set to go ahead this August. This is a mistake, as such massive gatherings will only serve to undo the reduction in spread of COVID-19, and most of the population will still only have had their first vaccination dose.

The United Kingdom has been in and out of lockdown for a year now, and everyone is paying the price for it. Mental health has taken a steep dive, unemployment has hit the highest rate in 5 years [1], and we have been unable to do many of the simple pleasures we took for granted like visiting a friend.

This has all been necessary to curb the spread of COVID-19, and whilst unbearably difficult at times, I believe we all understand why it needed to happen. Boris Johnson has given some amount of hope, by stating that the government is being extra-cautious in the easing of this lockdown so that it can be the final (whether that was a particularly wise thing to say is another story) [2]. And yet they are still allowing festivals like Leeds and Reading to go ahead in August, with tickets on sale now.

This is a huge mistake, born from the assumption that because we will hopefully be out of lockdown by June, then COVID-19 will no longer be a substantial risk. A gathering the size of a festival however, is likely to act a super spreader event. With huge crowds, questionable hygiene and over-packed tents, there is simply no way that the event-organisers can claim it is COVID secure.

The vaccine (until the 2nd dose) is thought to be about 75% effective, but it is important to note that it doesn't stop you from catching it. It is effective at stopping the symptoms from being life-threatening or making you seriously ill, but you're still likely to catch the virus and transmit it. [3]

It is heartbreaking to potentially lose another summer of normality to the virus, but if we act as if it is no longer an issue, then there is a potential that we lose further summers, and perhaps even go back into lockdown for a fourth time. We cannot allow the desire for a holiday to supercede our duty to protect our vulnerable and ensure this lockdown is our last.

Plus it's Liam Gallagher headlining, so nobody is missing out too much.

REFERENCES

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52660591

[2] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/02/15/boris-johnson-must-final-lockdown/

[3] https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/coronavirus-and-your-health/coronavirus-vaccine-your-questions-answered

TLDR - By stripping Shamima Begum of her citizenship, the UK has set dangerous precedent, in which it can leave it's citizens stateless, and forgo any responsibility and duty for justice it has towards all UK citizens

I don't think there are many people who would defend Shamima Begum's actions. In 2015, at the age of 15, she and her 2 friends traveled to Syria to join the Islamic State terrorist group. She was then later discovered in a Syrian Refugee camp in 2019, 9 months pregnant, and when she was found her citizenship was cancelled under security concerns.

Her attitude this whole time has clearly been one of arrogance and a lack of remorse, and this is sure to anger a lot of people, myself included. She has made claims of being unfazed upon seeing a beheaded man as he was an 'enemy of Islam'. [2]

And yet, she is still a UK citizen (or was). She is our responsibility to prosecute, and our responsibility to rehabilitate. She was groomed on our soil, to the point of leaving to join a terrorist group at age 15. This was a failure of the UK, not other countries, therefore her prosecution needs to happen in the UK.

The decision was made on the basis that she is a a citizen of Bangladesh by descent on her mother's side, but Bangladesh has denied this. She has never applied for dual citizenship, and as such her sole citizenship is the UK. [3]

We have a responsibility to give every UK citizen a fair trial, no matter how heinous their crimes, or how despicable their attitude. It simply does not matter whether or not they are remorseful, we are a democracy and a move like this undermines that fact.

REFERENCES

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamima_Begum

[2] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/shamima-begum-bring-me-home-says-bethnal-green-girl-who-fled-to-join-isis-hgvqw765d

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47312207

TLDR - Mental health has never been treated with the same seriousness as physical health, even now when lockdown measures are wreaking havoc on everyone's mental well-being

With psychology and research into mental health issues being a relatively recent thing in the grand scheme of human history, it does make sense that it would take a back seat to more known issues. After all, it's easier to see that someone has a knife stuck in their leg than it is to see that someone is suffering from depression.

However, even with the wealth of knowledge we have about mental illnesses, and the various treatments that might be effective, there is still an air of dismissiveness that pervades society with regards to things like depression and anxiety. They are seen as weaknesses of character, rather than things outside of our control.

I believe this a potential cause for the government underfunding mental health services, but I think now more than ever, there needs to be a shift in perception, in which mental health is seen with just as much importance as physical health. The nation has been in and out of lockdown for almost a year now, unable to socialise, unable to travel, unable to work (with many being laid off), and uncertain when this will end. All of these things take a huge toll on a person's mental health, and yet the focus has solely been on stopping the spread of COVID-19.

It's all well and good trying to get back to normality as quickly as possible, but for a lot of people, normality has become such a foreign prospect that even after lockdown ends and the pandemic seems to have passed, the hidden side effects of a year trapped at home will linger.

Tackling mental health is beneficial to every single part of society.

Physical health (and therefore the strain on the NHS) would improve as less people turn to alcoholism [1], overeating [2], and other harmful coping mechanisms. We would become a more empathic society, understanding that mental issues are real, they do impact us, even if we cannot see them. We would also become a more productive society. In 2017, the Centre for Mental Health estimated that mental health issues cost employers almost £35 billion [3].

It seems to me that the impact on personal and societal well-being, it makes little to no sense to just throw mental health services to the sideline, ensuring that waiting times are long [4], services are understaffed, and those that are can often be lacking in understanding [5].

REFERENCES

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/04/staggering-cost-nhs-alcohol-abuse-report

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/04/obesity-putting-strain-on-nhs-as-weight-related-admissions-rise

[3] https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/publications/mental-health-work-business-costs-ten-years

[4] https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/news-and-features/latest-news/detail/2020/10/06/two-fifths-of-patients-waiting-for-mental-health-treatment-forced-to-resort-to-emergency-or-crisis-services

[5] https://www.mind.org.uk/news-campaigns/news/mental-health-crisis-care-services-under-resourced-understaffed-and-overstretched/

I have to disagree, at least on a personal basis. I love reading, and to some extent I do truly get lost in a good book. However I tend to find that if I'm anxious or stressed about something, the silence of reading can allow those thoughts to play in my mind. I studied English Literature at uni, and during bouts of anxiety, my work ethic noticeably suffered because I would put off reading, knowing that I would just be sat there stewing.

I find for myself that I need more stimulation to relax. Maybe a movie or a video game, something that can just completely distract me from the present moment.

That said, I do think that reading in bed should be the last thing you do before sleep, as it engages you if you're not ready for sleep, but doesn't require the use of a screen which obviously does not help to sleep.

I think taxing things we wish to discourage is a pretty effective technique. For example in the UK, our tobacco products are taxed heavily in a bid to deter smokers. A 20 pack of cigarettes on average here will cost around £10 ($14). Whilst this will not discourage those who are already hooked, I do think it has gone a long way to discourage casual smokers from taking it up more frequently.

Couple that with the fact that unhealthier diets are linked to lower income families due to the ridiculous 'bang for buck' of fast food places, and I think you could potentially see these families going elsewhere.

However I do think that it can't just be a tax increase for it to be effective. Healthier options would need to perhaps get tax reductions (if possible, not 100% on how food and drink is taxed) and therefore become a cheaper option, to ensure that people are encouraged to make their diet healthier.

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

I think there is quite a large difference between showing up for a pay check, and being negligent in your duties as a teacher. Just because your primary reason for teaching is being paid, that doesn't mean you can't be an effective teacher. They're not just paid to read off a syllabus; they have a duty of care to their students, and it is their job as a teacher to ensure this is happening. Those who do not are simply not doing the job they are employed to do.

Now, that doesn't mean this obviously doesn't happen. We've all had terrible teachers who are quite clearly not doing their job in a way they should be. The classic 'stick a film on' teacher, or the one who takes out their personal issues on their students. But I think it's important to remember that these are not things that are welcomed by any education board.

The problem I think lies in a lack of accountability and making sure teachers are doing their job. Education is such an important thing, especially for younger minds, so I do think there should be more frequent teaching reviews to ensure the job is being done in the right way. We can't rely on students bringing up issues with teaching because they either a) will be presumed to just not like their teacher or b) presumed to not know what's best for them.

Also funding. There is really only so much motivation for teaching you can ask someone to have when they are being paid the pitiful amount they are. Couple that with a lack of access to materials and overcapacity classrooms, as seen in schools in lower socio-economic districts, and suddenly you begin to see the teachers that really aren't doing it for the pay.

TLDR: 2nd Amendment Rights aside, America has such a surplus of guns to population that placing a ban on firearms would create a huge imbalance of power between criminals with guns and law-abiding citizens without

I am completely anti-firearm. I live in the UK however, where firearms have never really been an issue outside of sport and the occasional spot of gang violence. The majority of our police are unarmed and deal with threats using negotiation and non-lethal tactics.

I do not see this as ever being a possibility in America because there are just too many guns circulating the country. It is estimated that there are 400 million guns in circulation in a America, which has a population of 328 million [1]. What this means is that if America were to place a ban on guns, there would still be plenty for the criminals to get their hands on (something that is harder to do in the UK, thus civilians don't need firearms).

Different schemes have been implemented by various countries over the years to remove guns from circulation. New Zealand for example, tried a buyback scheme when it voted for the banning of semi-automatic weapons in the wake of the Christchurch attack. However the effectiveness of this scheme has been called into question by some groups, who say we cannot know how many guns are in circulation, and based on what we do know, the number of voluntary surrenders was far lower than what is out there [2].

Ultimately, America's history of reliance on guns as a form of personal protection means that it has sealed its fate in terms of whether or not its population can be armed. I cannot see a possible way that it can disarm its populace without leaving it at the mercy of armed criminals.

REFERENCES

[1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/07/13/three-million-more-guns-the-spring-2020-spike-in-firearm-sales/#:~:text=There%20are%20more%20guns%20than,firearm%20for%20every%2020%20Americans.

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/20/questions-raised-about-new-zealands-gun-buyback-scheme-as-amnesty-ends

I do think there are things that can be done to go some way to reducing the number of guns in circulation.

More stringent vetting measures when purchasing a gun. It's an all to common story that someone who enacted a school shooting had a history of mental health issues but was still allowed to purchase a firearm.

Perhaps limiting the number of guns someone can have to one firearm. I don't know how much someone really needs five guns.

And just a blanket ban on civilians having automatic weapons. Those are designed solely to kill quickly and efficiently, not for self defence. They are weapons of war and should be kept to those areas, not for civilian use.

I also think just having a buy back scheme as a constant is a good idea. It would take at least some of the weapons out of circulation, and it then doesn't infringe on anyone's rights to take them away as they have been voluntarily surrendered.

TLDR - E-Cigarettes are definitely not good, but when compared to smoking cigarettes, they are definitely the better option

There is definitely a problem in young people today who begin to vape and then move onto smoking, which of course is the opposite of what they were originally designed for. I have met quite a few 19-20 year olds who said they began vaping which then made them try smoking. Whereas I myself began smoking, switched to vaping after 3 years, and then a couple months later went back to smoking. So their effectiveness as a smoking aid is definitely questionable.

However I know a lot of people it has helped. They started off with high nicotine vape juice to get a similar rush and throat feel as cigarettes, and then gradually tapered down until they were vaping the minimum amount. In this regard, vaping has quite literally been a lifesaver for these people. They needed to replace that habit of taking a drag with something similar, and vaping is really the only thing that closely mimics the feeling of cigarettes but with far less health risks.

I do think that the way vaping is marketed has become a problem though. What began as a way to help people quit smoking has become an addiction and business model in its own right. From flashy packaging, to vape cafes, it's quite clear that the vaping industry is using the same tactics that the tobacco industry built its empire on. Perhaps there should be legislation regarding packaging and the removal of vape stores as social areas, as it reinforces the casual nature of something that obviously still does affect your health.

TLDR - Whilst I do believe zoos are a bad thing and we have far too many, I am mixed on whether we should get rid of them entirely

I don't tend to go to zoos because seeing an animal that should be roaming the African sahara but is instead about 1km left of the Morrisons car park just makes me sad. And I think there is absolutely something to be said about the fact we have taken these animals from their natural habitat and shoved them in small spaces for the benefit of an audience.

However, I do think zoos have and do play an important role in conservation. We have to accept that we, as humans, have decimated the places that these animals call home. Poaching is rife, riverbeds are drying up as global warming heats up the planet, and deforestation is destroying the Amazon. These aren't things that are going to happen, but things that have, are, and will continue to happen.

With that in mind, zoos have their part to play in raising awareness and empathy for these endangered animals. Being able to see and hear the creature (relatively) up close leads to greater empathy, as suddenly that lion is real and percievable. It isn't just an animal I have heard about and seen on TV, because I just saw one 40ft away from me.

I think the way forward is to have less zoos, but make the ones that remain much larger. Provide more naturalistic habitats for every animal, and ensure they have enough space to roam. Now, whether that is feasible (usually zoos already have a lot of bought up buildings surrounding them) is another thing, but I think getting rid of them entirely would do more harm than good for the animals.

TLDR - When crafting the narrative for a video game, the choices made (such as villains, motivations, events) are inherently political in some way. They are an intentional choice that reflect, however minutely, the writer's political bias

The debate over whether video games are political, or simply entertainment products (why can't they be both?) has been reignited after the publisher of the upcoming game Six Days in Fallujah stated that they are 'not trying to make a political commentary' [1]. This seems like an odd statement considering the game has you playing as American forces in the battle of Fallujah during the Iraq War. By placing the player in the shoes of an army that used white phosphorus as a weapon and whose enriched uranium munitions led to an increase in cancer and infant mortality rate years after the battle, the developers are suggesting that there was still some good to be found here.

This unwillingness to potentially affect a game's sales by admitting political writing is nothing new. We saw Ubisoft claim 2019's The Division 2 is not political, a game which centres around a civil war in America and features enemies installing themselves in the U.S. Capitol...yeah [2]. We also saw Infinity Ward claim that 2019's Call of Duty: Modern Warfare [3], which features revisionist history that attributes a real life war crime committed by American forces to a fictional Russian force [4].

What these examples show, is that it doesn't matter whether or not a developer wants to label their games as political. The narrative they choose to write, and choose to release to an audience, is in itself a political statement. All art is subject to some form of politics, from the things it omits, the things it focuses on, the things its creators choose to spend their time working on. Bowser didn't just happen to be a dictatorial conqueror, the writers at Nintendo chose those traits to signal he is an antagonist. Therefore, they are suggesting being a dictatorial conqueror is a bad thing (it is).

It is obvious why the developers don’t want to label their games as political; they don’t want to risk alienating potential buyers. Video games are, after all, quickly becoming the most profitable entertainment media, particularly in the midst of lockdowns around the world. And yet by refusing to acknowledge any politics within their games, these developers (the ones interviewed and making the claims) are devaluing the artistic merit of their work.

References

[1] - https://www.polygon.com/2021/2/15/22279600/six-days-in-fallujah-interview-iraq-war-politics

[2] - https://www.polygon.com/e3/2018/6/12/17451688/the-division-2-is-not-making-any-political-statements

[3] - https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/infinity-ward-says-modern-warfare-isnt-political/

[4] - https://www.polygon.com/2019/10/30/20938550/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-highway-of-death-controversy

TLDR: Ted Mosby from How I Met Your Mother personifies the Nice Guy syndrome, in which men consistently lament how great of a guy they are and question why they're still single, whilst actually doing pretty terrible things to women. He is the worst.

Ted Mosby is a character we are meant to, in some ways, empathise with. It is obvious he is not meant to be a perfect character, instead one that grows throughout the show's seasons, and learns from his mistakes. The problem is, he really doesn't.

This is a man who tells a girl that he loves her on the very first date. He is so obsessed with finding 'The One' that he places women in uncomfortable situations, coming on way too strong from the start and feeling disapointed when they don't reciprocate.

This is also a man who claims to be nice, a great catch. And yet in one episode, he specifically rides a train known to be full of drunk girls (whilst he is sober) who will be 'easy' to hook up with. That screams predator to me.

The show tries to play off Ted as a quirky and lovable hopeless romantic, but instead he comes off as someone who demands to be loved, and refuses to acknowledge and change the problematic parts of themselves.

TLDR: I dislike Amazon as much as anyone, but I would have missed out on a lot of my favourite reads if not for its cheap and speedy offerings

There's certainly a case to be made for supporting book stores over Amazon, especially independent ones that need our help more than ever right now.

But I often find that when it comes down to it, the independent stores either don't have the book im looking for, or if it does it can often cost almost double as much as from Amazon. And for someone whose desire to read a specific book has to be jumped on immediately or else I'll want to read something else, that is a massive thing for me.

Some of my favourite books such as All Quiet on the Western Front, and The Sun Also Rises, i was able to get much cheaper and second hand off of Amazon than i would have elsewhere. And i think if it comes down to giving some business to amazon versus not reading a book and maybe missing out on something that impacts and influences me, i would rather give a little business to amazon occasionally.

TLDR: I think it would be wrong to say Shakespeare as a completely original visionary, but his impact on the literary world and beyond cannot be denied, whether you like him or not

The main issue that I have with teaching Shakespeare in school is that it is often read, or read allowed by nervous students in class. Shakespeare intended his work to be played by actors, not dryly read in a classroom, and I think this leads to a lot of dislike of his work.

But really there is no denying the impact of that work. Romeo and Juliet is seen as the quintessential classic love story, and Macbeth the classic tale of guilt and how it destroys us. His work has been spoofed, built upon and reimagined so many times and will continue to be. His work has also provided the backdrop for quite a few famous British actors, who started their careers playing his various characters.

Just for context, I am not the biggest Shakespeare fan. I like some of his plays but the majority I do not. But i can't deny just how important he is to the world of literature, whether he deserves it or not.

TLDR: Heath Ledger is the best Joker because he completely lost himself in a role that he has never done before, whereas Jack Nicholson's Joker felt like Jack Nicholson in makeup

I personally think that Heath Ledger's Joker is the best one. It fit so perfectly with Nolan's more grounded take on Batman, and I think he strikes the right balance between crazy but also self awareness of that craziness.

I think many people would have been hard pressed to remember that its Heath Ledger when watching him play the Joker, because he takes on so many mannerisms that are completely foreign to what we know of him (the subtle lip licking, the eyes moving wildly). However when I saw Jack Nicholson's Joker, I felt like I was watching The Shining with a little extra makeup, because that kind of madness is what we have already seen from him.

TLDR: school age students (I'm guessing year 7-11ish) do not have the experience needed to make decisions like that and could end up damaging their future prospects

Whilst I do think it would be good to have a bit more of a choice when it comes to the content you focus on (perhaps within a particular subject), I think younger students would tend to choose subjects that are easier or viewed as more laid back so school is more fun.

I know when I was at school I used to hate doing work, and just wanted to mess around, as did most of my peers judging by how our classes went. If I had been able to choose what subjects to do and not to do I would have chosen things like art and tech and I.T. (lessons in which it was easier to relax) and ignore things like maths and science and English (which I now love). This would have set me up improperly for life, and I think I would lack some of the fundamentals necessary for employment or even understanding the world.

I think if you're allowed to vote at the age of 18, you should be able to drink.

Legally you're classed as an adult at 18, which means you're pretty much at the whims of the world with far less protection than a 16/17 year old. Society expects you to make life changing decisions at that age so I think you should be able to drink. The issue isn't age, the issue is education

Isn't Ulfric secretly a pawn of the Imperials as well? Swear I remember reading a note about it at the Thalmor HQ

Either way yeah siding with the Stormcloaks feels a little like siding with Brexiteers. It's all well and good until someone shouts "Skyrim for the Nords" and you realise maybe you're with the bad guys

This is not to say that all landlords are inherently evil people. Rather the decision to enter a system that consistently favors property rights over human rights is a questionable one at best, and this system means that the concept of landlords (in my opinion) cannot be argued as 'good'.

Landlords have an inherently parasitic relationship with society. They provide no useful labor or skill, and provide nothing of value, instead choosing a method of absentee ownership to make money off working citizens who need shelter. It is argued that landlords take the risk of the having to upkeep the property and invest into its repair, and whilst this is somewhat true, the existence of deposits means that this risk is placed upon the tenant.

Landlording is different from other investments, in that it is one that profits off a basic human need. It is not risking your money to buy stocks or develop a new product, it is risking your money to charge people for shelter when an estimated 8.4 million people in the UK are living in an 'unaffordable, insecure or unsuitable home. [1]' This was in 2019, no doubt the number has risen since the pandemic. When an eviction takes place, one party (the landlord) is losing out on payments for a second property, whilst the other (the tenant) is losing out on shelter required for survival.

Often landlords have no other source of income other than rent, whereas the tenants will be working 9-5 to be able to afford paying that rent. What makes this whole system even more immoral to me is the idea that landlords will often have a mortgage on their second home, and are therefore charging their tenants to pay of a loan they willingly chose to take out.

As I said before, I don't necessarily think landlords as people are bad people, I think the concept of landlords is a failure of capitalism, and of the government not doing enough to ensure its people have an acceptable standard of shelter. There are no good landlords, because the system of landlording is in my opinion, not a good thing.

REFERENCING

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49787913#:~:text=Housing%20crisis%20affects%20estimated%208.4%20million%20in%20England%20%2D%20research,-22%20September%202019&text=An%20estimated%208.4%20million%20people,to%20the%20National%20Housing%20Federation.&text=The%20government%20said%20housing%20was,430%2C000%20affordable%20homes%20since%202010.

Hope this didn't come off as an attack then!

I think for me the difference (and I have to admit a very limited understanding of stocks and bonds) is not necessarily between their structure but what they imply. Holding onto Apple shares to then sell them on for profit does not have the same implications for someone's livelihood that owning a property and charging someone for shelter does.

I do think there are plenty of good people who are landlords, I just feel the system has reached such a point of inequality that I cannot personally see the existence of landlords as a positive thing, particularly lately when so many are without income and losing their homes.

TLDR - Whilst Joker is not quite the dangerous film that some have labeled it as, its choice of central character is the wrong one to have anything meaningful to say about society and mental health

Joker released to a slew of criticism in regards to its sympathetic look at a violent criminal. Some critics feared it might incite violence, leading to a copycat audience who lash out at society in much the same way that Arthur (The Joker) does in the film. Whilst I do disregard these criticisms to the extent that I think ultimately someone with the potential to copy Arthur's violence probably always was going to, I do agree that it's sympathy for its lead character undermines its messages.

Ultimately, Todd Philips tries to use the character arc of Arthur Fleck to explore how a disinterested and cruel society can lead to some people being pushed over the edge and lashing out. Throughout the film, we see Arthur have his medication stopped due to lack of funding, his disability shunned and his general demeanor mocked and played for laughs. These are all things that we as an audience can sympathize with. And yet what follows is a trail of increasingly brutal violence, never in a proportional response to the acts of mockery that inspired them. Todd throws these things in our face as if to say "Look at what you've done. Look at what society has created. Isn't it terrible?".

Yes Todd, it is terrible that a mentally ill man has been shunned and mocked, and had his medication revoked. These are truly terrible things that nobody should have to go through. But you kind of lost me when you had him (SPOILERS) stab a pair of scissors into that man's eye and throat. Or when you had him kill his mother.

There's a sense that Joker wants us to look at this violence and understand its inception. Todd Phillips said "it's about kindness and a lot of people miss that" [1]. In other films that could perhaps work, but Joker spends too much of the movie reinforcing the idea that Arthur is separate from society, that he does not fit in (such as a scene in which he visits a stand up show, only to laugh in moments that are not meant to be funny). It tells us nothing of how a lack of kindness can affect members of our society because the film makes it clear that Arthur does not belong to it in the first place.

In the end, to me Joker comes off as a film whose director thinks it is saying something deep and profound, but in reality reminds me more of an A Level Media student's edgy project (I mean this is a man who said he stopped directing comedy movies because of 'woke culture') [2].

REFERENCES

[1] https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2487838/what-joker-is-really-about-according-to-director-todd-phillips

[2] https://www.indiewire.com/2019/10/todd-phillips-left-comedy-joker-woke-culture-1202177886/

TLDR - Boris Johnson and his cabinet announced and encouraged the 'Clap for Tom Moore' in an attempt to drive a narrative akin to "Heroes doing their national duty and raising money for the NHS' as opposed to the narrative of the conservatives consistently under funding the service to the point that it needed donations in the first place.

Tom Moore was undoubtedly someone who deserves to be recognised. His goal of raising £1000 for NHS Charities Together (by walking over 100 lengths of his garden at 100 years old) ended in a staggering £32.7 million raised. This is no small feat, and clearly for our nation, Tom Moore represented a determination and spirit that we hope is evident in the British peoples.

And yet, when Boris announced a clap for Tom Moore on a Thursday at 6pm, I couldn't help but be left with a sour taste in my mouth. Here was a man whose party have been responsible for a decade of under funding the NHS [1], who announced a £16.5 billion increase in the defense budget during a pandemic when said under funded NHS is in dire need of money [2], encouraging us to clap for a situation that has only been necessitated by the conservative's greed.

This was no (perhaps misguided) social movement like the 'Clap for our Carers' [3], begun by the people without the power to currently help the NHS. This was a deliberate attempt from the prime minister, to make a martyr out of a situation that should never have needed a martyrdom in the first place.

It's the equivalent of someone setting a house on fire and applauding the firemen who died trying to douse its flames.

REFERENCES

[1] https://nhsfunding.info/nhs-crisis-making/#:~:text=The%20NHS%20has%20experienced%20a,since%20the%20NHS%20was%20established.

[2] https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/11/19/uk-to-boost-defense-budget-by-219-billion-heres-who-benefits-and-loses-out/

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clap_for_Our_Carers

Everything is a cake fork if you believe in yourself

TLDR: Whilst Mulan is a great film, Inside Out is such an important film for children to see, as it can help them to understand their emotions, which in turn has far reaching positive implications for their life, such as relationship building and confidence.

So much of our adult lives can be linked to our childhood. Our attachment styles are formed during our early years, and often it is during childhood that we learn how we should consider our emotions (this can be positively or negatively). A film like Inside Out, made for children to help them navigate this learning experience, is such an important teaching tool, and provides symbolism they can apply to their emotions.

Inside Out teaches us that our emotions are not something to be feared or avoided. Each one plays a vital role in how we navigate the world, and we should choose to embrace them. As someone with anxiety, this movie spoke to me in a way that no other Disney film has. It has taken a long time to learn not to just try not think about being anxious, and instead to consider it a moment, perhaps understand where it has come from and then move on. A lot of how I deal with my emotions right now is linked to how I was taught, or at least how I thought I was supposed to deal with emotions as a child. A film like Inside Out would have done wonders for understanding why I was feeling a certain way, and to learn that it is a very human thing, not something to be fixed.

TLDR: Whilst I do not judge people that eat meat, I do think that of all the things that we can do for our health, cutting out meat (and or dairy) is the dietary change with the biggest positive impact on the world and ourselves

The meat and dairy industry has such a massive negative impact on the world, accounting for roughly 14.5% of the world's yearly greenhouse gases. If we were to stop eating these things then the climate would be in much better shape, and climate change is likely to be the thing that wipes us out eventually (which definitely doesn't sound too good for us).

I think the main issue I take with arguments for eating meat in terms of health benefits is that sometimes it assumes vegetarians think that as long as you don't eat meat you can eat whatever else you like. I'm a vegetarian and I eat terribly and inconsistently, but I would much rather improve my health by cutting down on processed foods than eat something that requires the death of a sentient being. Eating meat is bad for my mental health because it is something that goes against my morals.

Everyone's diet contains a lack of something that can lead to increased risk of health conditions, and I think the ethics of eating meat vs not eating meat has led to the politicization of vegetarianism. Nutritional studies lay the smoking gun of health problems at the feet of vegetarians and meat eaters alike, yet how much of a direct link can be made to either one when diet encompasses such a massive range of foods?

So I personally do not think that the health benefits of eating meat outweigh the benefits to everything else including yourself of vegetarianism. And if I die of a heart condition, it's probably more likely to be the smoking and drinking rather than skipping the Big Mac!

Animal Crossing: New Horizons is essentially a capitalism simulator, in which we must continuously incur debt to create more value and encourage the growth of our community.

Tom Nook, the raccoon capitalist overlord of our island, provides us with loans to upgrade the island. It is through him that all progress is made, as we construct new buildings and attract new islanders. Unlike the real world, Nook is a patient money lender, content to watch you trot about the island, lazily catching butterflies whilst making 0 attempts to pay back his loan. And yet without paying back that loan, you cannot grow your island. Visiting other islands will fill your heart with longing; they have given in to the toil of capitalism, and look how it has rewarded them. Is that a new swimming pool?

The notion of consumerism pervades everything you do in Animal Crossing. Friendships rise and fall based on the value of the gifts you give. You work to sell items, to gain bells (the currency), to purchase items, to gift those items, and potentially gain a gift in return. The value of your gift determines the value of the gift you could get back. Give that squirrel a a grey treadmill and he'll love you forever. Give him trash, and maybe not so much. It's just like real life!

The game even has its own stock market, nicknamed the stalk market. Every Sunday, a character called Daisy Mae will sell you turnips for an ever changing price. The idea is to sell the turnips at a shop for more than you paid. But the price changes twice a day, meaning there's a chance that you will end up taking a loss. What's more, the Turnips will spoil and devalue as the week goes on, meaning you cannot hold onto them for too long.

In the end, Animal Crossing presents us with the idealistic view of capitalism, in which rich and poor can succeed so long as they put the work in. But make no mistake, Tom Nook is always watching, always waiting. He knows you want that extension on your house to hold all your turnips. In the end, he will win. He always wins.

TLDR: The TV show Hunters has a tonal problem, in which it tries to juggle the severity and horrors of the Holocaust, with its pulpy comic-book tone. This coupled with its invention of Holocaust torture techniques for shock value means the show ends up undermining the reality of what went on, in a time when white supremacy is on the rise again.

The show's premise focuses on a group of Nazi Hunters in the 70's, tracking down and killing Nazis in America who were brought over after WW2. Whilst this is based on the real life actions of Simon Wiesenthal, he never attacked or harmed the Nazis; he tracked them down and informed the authorities. Instead the show fulfills a revenge fantasy, in which the same violence shown towards Jews during the holocaust is enacted on those who perpetrated that violence.

In one particular moment of historical revisionism, Hunters depicts the Nazis at Auschwitz forcing Jewish prisoners to play a game of human chess, where they must kill the 'piece' they capture. There is no documented evidence that something like this ever happened, and will no doubt lead some viewers to go "oh phew" when they take to google to see if it did. This is problematic, as it undermines the real barbarism that happened during the Holocaust in favor of a more cartoonishly evil depiction of events. The Auschwitz memorial museum also took issue with the scene saying that it was 'not only dangerous foolishness and caricature, it also welcomes future deniers' [1]. Holocaust denial is reported to be on the rise, as survivors are passing away, and things such as this only serve to muddy a time that should not be soon forgotten.

As the show progresses, the violence on screen becomes more and more common, to the point where the show turns into a form of torture-porn. The tone shifts from an attempt to look at Holocaust trauma and the lingering anger of its survivors, to a fantastical mystery with a plot twist that undermines any of that commentary on violence, in which (Spoilers) the head of the Nazi hunters turns out to be a Nazi himself, who has had plastic surgery to 'look Jewish'. As such, the violence against the Nazis is being spear-headed by a Nazi, and any insight into the catharsis of revenge is lost.

Ultimately, whilst Hunters is undeniably a well made and slick show, its snubbing of real world history in favor of caricature and shock value did not sit well for me, particularly in a time when white supremacy and Holocaust denial is on the rise. It was not the show we needed right now, and I feel the show-runners missed an opportunity to educate us on the realities of the Holocaust, whilst still retaining some of its pulpy tone.

REFERENCES

[1] https://twitter.com/AuschwitzMuseum/status/1231536705624322050?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1231536705624322050%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.esquire.com%2Fentertainment%2Ftv%2Fa31076101%2Fhunters-amazon-human-chess-scene-holocaust-nazis-true-story-controversy%2F

I think the absence of an afterlife makes everything in life more meaningful.

First, it means we have one life, no more or no less, so we should make the most of it. If you knew you were going to die in a week's time, and that would be the end of your consciousness, you would spend the week doing everything you've always wanted to do (that is if you didn't spend a week in bed moping about the fact you're going to die like I probably would). But if you knew that after you die your life would continue on, perhaps in a paradise, then what you do would surely matter less, because in the end you're still going to heaven where life will be even better.

I think the lack of an afterlife also adds meaning in what we choose to do with it, and the sincerity of how we live it. Doing good deeds so that we go to heaven lacks the sincerity of doing good deeds because you want to improve other lives. The latter is more meaningful (at least to me) because it is selfless and motivated by goodness.

If we are coming from an Abrahamic religious perspective, in that God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, and an afterlife exists for those who choose good/redemption, then I think we find even less meaning in life. What meaning is there in a child suffering when a supposedly loving and powerful God allows it to happen? Why would I strive to worship one with the power to do good, but chooses not to, so as to 'test' us? Why would I care about my life's meaning in his grand plan? The creation of life is not, in my opinion, enough to merit worship. It's the equivalent of a couple popping out a baby and then leaving it to fend for itself.

However, if God and the afterlife do not exist, then suddenly our life's meaning is ours to choose. There is no plan to rely on, only what we make of it.

I think Goblet of Fire is great, but I Prisoner of Azkaban is the best!

It's the first movie that moved away from the more childlike magic of the first two films, into a more realistic vision of Hogwarts. The tone to match this is much darker, both in themes, music and the colour-grading of the film. It feels like it's the only one in the series to fully embrace the tone that it's going for in every aspect.

It stands really well as just a great mystery on its own, without relying too much on the shock and awe of being at Hogwarts and a magical place, and instead focusing on Harry's relationship with Lupin and his place in this world. Through that relationship we learn a lot about Harry's parents, and see a sort of mirroring in James' life to his.

It's also just a great piece of film-making. Some of the shots are really well done; the one-shot in the pub where Arthur is telling Harry about Sirius, continuously isolating him as the scene goes on until the final moment of the shot he is completely alone, reflecting how he feels in that moment. The film then continues to have shots where Harry is isolated, and I love that it's the first film to flip the whole "boy who lived" idea from an exciting positive thing, to actually being a threat to Harry and those he loves, because now he's a target.

I also love when movies play with time, and I think it was done really well here. Although there is definitely a question of why Dumbledore decided the best use of a time turner would be for a student to do extra lessons and not something a little more...good for the world?

The main issue I have with Goblet of Fire is the looseness of it's plot. Placing the hopes of Voldemort being born again on the caveat that Harry wins the tournament so he can get his blood seems unnecessarily complex, and in my opinion damages Voldemort's image of a master schemer.

The scene with the death eaters was pretty cool though, and I loved that the tone of the film takes a complete 180 in that moment.

There is nothing less intimidating than a letter from TV Licensing telling you they're definitely going to come round and check because you don't pay

On a side note, I wonder how much money and paper they waste on sending out those letters? They can't legally enter your home without a court order (which they would never get), so just seems like a waste to me

There's a couple of things I want to argue here

First, the idea that companies will have to increase the prices of things in order to pay their employees. They won't, it just means their profit margins will be just a little bit smaller now. Slightly smaller profit margins vs your employees actually being able to live seems like a no brainer to me. Also the minimum wage is slow to catch up with inflation, so prices of things already have been increasing without wages increasing.

Second minimum wage is not really indicative of cost of living in a lot of places. I'm from the UK and live in Oxford. The cost of living here is similar to the cost of living in London, but only London has the higher minimum wage.

Also I just want to mention that I feel we don't pay the proper value for things. Think about $1 milk, or a $5 T-Shirt. The standards in which these things must have been created for that price are unlikely to be great, for the cow or the worker.

I think it depends on the reason you're reading the book. Are you reading for enjoyment or to learn something new/ gain a new perspective?

I did English Literature at university, which meant I was required to read books that I didn't necessarily enjoy, but I'm glad I finished them. One of my favorite novellas is Fiesta: The Sun Also Rises by Earnest Hemmingway. I was assigned it at university and tried to read it but did not enjoy it and so never finished. That was until 2 years later when I picked it up again and decided to give it another go.

The novel, in classic Hemmingway style, has particularly simple sentences that forgo any flowery descriptive language, which often made it a difficult read (in the sense that it can feel 'boring'). I struggled at times with carrying on, and there were certainly times when I wasn't enjoying it at all, but I decided to power through.

And I'm so glad I did.

What seemed at first glance to be a novel in which not much happens slowly turned into an examination on the 'lost generation', and their feelings of aimlessness after such a world-changing event: World War 1. I became aware of the techniques that Hemmingway was using to reflect the protagonist's (and his own) post-war world-view.

So in this situation, I had to push through the parts I didn't enjoy and ended up greatly enjoying the book towards the end. In other situations I haven't felt like I've enjoyed a book until after finishing it and thinking about what I felt it was trying to do.

I think there's also a case to be made for books that aren't necessarily enjoyable but are important reads in teaching us something about the world (although an argument could be made that you could just look up critical studies of the book rather than subject yourself to an unenjoyable read)

I don't necessarily want to tell someone to keep reading a novel on the off chance it gets better, but I think there's a chance you might miss out on something great if you stop at points where it isn't enjoyable.

Warning: Explicit Content

I think there is a general issue with criticism of music, in which female artists face significantly more scrutiny than their male counter-parts, specifically in regards to their lyrics.

A recent example would be the song WAP (an acronym for 'Wet Ass Pussy') by Cardi B featuring Megan Thee Stallion. The song, in explicit terms, describes the ways in which the two women wish to be pleasured by men. A departure from lyrics that in R&B traditionally focus on winning a man's affection/love, the song instead places emphasis on female pleasure and sexual empowerment.

Whilst the song was successful commercially and critically, there was still a rather noticeable backlash surrounding the explicit nature of the lyrics. A lot of the criticism did unsurprisingly come from conservatives such as Ben Shapiro [1] and Republican James P Bradley [2]. This was always going to be the case from people with such conservative views, and yet what was more surprising (or perhaps not) was the reaction from seemingly more liberal people.

Snoop Dogg, a rapper whose lyrics include "I'm here to put this dick on you / I'm stuck on pussy and yours is right" [3], criticised the song, saying 'Let's have some privacy, some intimacy", and suggested 'that should be a possession that no one gets to know about until they know about it" [4]. The hypocrisy here is clear, and points to a larger issue of men still feeling they get the final say in what women can and can't sing about, and the double standards at play when dealing with sexuality.

Comedian Russell Brand also came under fire, when he suggested that the song was an attempt to emulate a template of loud sexuality that had been created by men, rather than genuine female sexual expression [5]. The idea that singing about sex is reserved solely for men just serves to reinforce gender expectations, and is again a man telling women how they should express their sexuality.

This double standard is further highlighted when you consider how little male rap lyrics make it into the mainstream news cycle. Rap has constantly been criticised as being misogynistic, with its over use of terms such as 'bitch' and 'hoe', yet the explicitness of rap lyrics seems to be accepted.

One such example is the song Mood Swings by Pop Smoke, which hit number 5 in the UK Singles Chart, and number 17 on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart. In other words, the song was absolutely in the mainstream consciousness. Mood Swings details having unprotected sex with women, featuring the lyrics "Start rubbin' on your butt, start massagin' your breasts / I ain't wanna give you a baby just yet, so I backed out and nutted on your breasts" [6]. The song is equally as graphic as WAP, and yet there is little conversation over whether the lyrics are disgusting or not. In fact, upon typing WAP into Google News (on 21/01/2021), the first article that comes up is Don McLean (singer of American Pie) calling the song disgusting [7]. In comparison, typing Mood Swings into Google News simply returns articles detailing it's success [8].

If nothing else, WAP served to highlight the issue that society has when it comes to women expressing their sexuality. There shouldn't be a conversation about whether it is disgusting, when rap lyrics sung by men have been sexualising women for decades to little discourse. The fact that the conversation only comes to the forefront when it is women singing about sex shows an inherent sexism in the way that music is criticised.

REFERENCES

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/cardi-b-ben-shapiro-wap-lyrics-feminism-megan-thee-stallion-a9664231.html

[2] https://twitter.com/JamesBradleyCA/status/1291735105774522368?s=20

[3] https://genius.com/Akon-i-wanna-fuck-you-lyrics

[4] https://www.revolt.tv/news/2020/12/12/22171581/snoop-dogg-criticizes-cardi-b-song-wap

[5] https://twitter.com/rustyrockets/status/1294359385741950976?s=20

[6] https://genius.com/Pop-smoke-mood-swings-lyrics

[7] https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=wap&sxsrf=ALeKk02EZ7dQLYyRwMYJNkGWrWxjYYtuhg:1611259726787&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiclZ-d6q3uAhWrSxUIHQamBfAQ_AUoA3oECBIQBQ&biw=1366&bih=625

[8] https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mood+swings+pop+smoke&sxsrf=ALeKk02FPkzpAGhP0O3XQhkDOxKmdY75Wg:1611259756193&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiqiaKr6q3uAhVKQRUIHZTbBkwQ_AUoA3oECBAQBQ&biw=1366&bih=625

Modern dating has an often unspoken about problem with racial fetishism, in which people actively seek out romantic/sexual partners based on their race; for example, saying "I really like Asian girls." By accepting a preference, we are allowing ourselves to distill people down to racial stereotypes.

During the BLM protests, the dating app Grindr spoke about solidarity by declaring they would remove the ethnicity filter present on their app. Yet the fact that this existed in the first place is emblematic of the acceptance of racial fetishism. OkCupid and Hinge also allow users to filter out other users based on their race, and have refused to remove the feature, claiming that it is mainly used by black users who wish to find other black users. [1]

Whilst there is something to be said about wishing to date someone that has experiences life in a similar manner to you (such as having to deal with white supremacy every day), these tools do more harm than good. In 2014, a study on Black/White dating online found that 80% of white users would only ever message other white users, whilst black users were 10 times more likely to message white users than the other way round. These filters are providing a space for white supremacy to flourish, even subconsciously. [2]

The fetishisation of Asian women is an often mocked yet hardly ever taken seriously aspect of dating, that seems to be seen as harmless preference. Common stereotypes include the white middle aged man with a young Asian bride (see: 90 Day Fiancé), or the anime-obsessed 'weebo' looking for an Japanese girlfriend (see: Reddit). This trivialisation promotes a colonial mindset, in which 'otherness' is applied to those of a different race, judging them by the colour of their skin rather than, as Martin Luther King put it, 'the content of their character.'

Pornography plays a key role in the promotion of racial fetishism, with videos often highlighting racial differences as a selling point. Users can filter to their preferred race, and categories cater to interracial scenes, often titled with derogatory terminology that includes physical racial stereotypes. With the consumption of pornography constantly rising, particularly among young people [3], racial fetishism is being passed on to the next generation, taught to notice and consider race as a matter of preference.

I am not suggesting that racial fetishism is a recent phenomenon. Indeed, as mentioned before, it is an echo of colonialism that has persisted to this day. Yet I think it is a seriously overlooked aspect of modern dating, and is long overdue a sustained effort to combat it.

REFERENCES

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/06/02/race-protests-are-forcing-dating-apps-to-reconsider-the-value-of-their-ethnicity-filters/?sh=6e7fcb6b768f

[2] Mendelsohn, G. A., Shaw Taylor, L., Fiore, A. T., & Cheshire, C. (2014). Black/White dating online: Interracial courtship in the 21st century. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 3(1), 2–18

[3] https://www.webroot.com/gb/en/resources/tips-articles/internet-pornography-by-the-numbers#:~:text=40%20million%20American%20people%20regularly,of%20porn%20viewers%20are%20women.

I think you raise a good point about the fact that we shouldn't try and retool our sexual or romantic tastes, and there is certainly a danger to denying/repressing our natural attractions.

I guess what I'm more suggesting is that, we should be wary when we have preferences of attraction towards race, and look to identify if that attraction stems from subconscious acceptance/expectation of racial stereotypes. I personally (and I'm aware that this is quite a sweeping and somewhat exaggerated statement) believe that the majority of racial preference in dating will stem from those things, or at the very least will in some ways perpetuate viewing difference races as 'other' or 'exotic', and we should be mindful of that.

$1 billion is hard to wrap your head around. Casually dropped into conversation, we recognise it as a lot of money, but the actual size of $1 billion is astounding. To put it into context, if you were to spend $10,000 a day, it would take you 274 years to spend $1 billion. Someone on an $80,000 a year salary would need 12,500 years to become a billionaire. It's a staggering amount of money, and Elon Musk, recently declared the richest man in the world, has a net worth of almost $200 billion [1].

In 2017, Oxfam conducted a report which concluded that just eight men hold the same wealth as half of the world [2]. Three years later and a report by Swiss bank UBS found that during the height of the Coronavirus pandemic (April 2020 - July 2020), the billionaires of the world increased their collective fortune by 27.5% to an estimated £7.8 trillion [3]. These gains are not the result of fair work, but of the exploitation of an underpaid and overlaboured workforce, who rarely see the fruits of that labour returned to them.

Simply put, there is no way for someone to become a billionaire without someone losing out. Jeff Bezos has built his Amazon empire off the backs of notoriously overworked warehouse teams [4], Elon Musk has done the same [5]. Even Bill Gates, a man who many see as a saint-like philanthropist, has been criticised for using his wealth to lobby state and federal governments to pour public money into ineffective education research [6]. That's not to mention Microsoft's reported involvement in using forced Uyghur labor in the production of their products [7].

With global poverty set to rise in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic [8], for the few at the top have their wealth increase is unjustifiable, unethical, and the sign of a broken system.

REFERENCES

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/elon-musk-net-worth-2021-b1784459.html

[2] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half-world

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/07/covid-19-crisis-boosts-the-fortunes-of-worlds-billionaires

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/05/amazon-workers-protest-unsafe-grueling-conditions-warehouse

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/18/tesla-workers-factory-conditions-elon-musk

[6] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/04/16/um-who-are-melinda-bill-gates-trying-kid/

[7] https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale

[8] https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview

I personally am quite wary of the concept of billionaires providing value to society, and the suggestion that as their wealth grows, so too does the opportunity for wealth for others in that society.

This idea of trickle-down economics has been proven flawed many times now [1]. By allowing billionaire growth to increase through tax breaks and the assumption of investment into the economy, it is actually the middle and lower class citizens (those the make up the majority of society) that suffer.

The assumption also is that a growing economy means that everyone taking part in that economy will be uplifted. But again, this is an assumption that a country will use its increased GDP for the good of its citizens, such as pouring money into public services, rather than prioritise increasing that GDP. America's GDP has been increasing steadily over the years, and yet the wealth gap between the richest and poorest families has more than doubled in the past almost 30 years [2].

In terms of the wages, I think you've explained why the wages are at the level they are, but not why this is an ethical situation. We have allowed ourselves to have a system where wages are driven by supply and demand, rather than fair pay for fair work. You suggest that there is a balance between taking a job at a certain wage or looking elsewhere, but I would argue that in a capitalist society, many do not have that luxury, and are forced to take whatever they can get in order to secure some form of income. Billionaires exploit this system, building their wealth through paying the minimum that they can get away with, whilst getting tax reliefs that their own labour force are not entitled to.

You are right that unions are a great step forward in finding mutual ground between employee and employers, but Elon Musk [3], Jeff Bezos [4], and others [5] have attempted to stop unionisation among employees. I think this suggests something about the threat that unions, who strive for fair treatment of employees, pose to billionaires and their ability to make the maximum amount of profit from their employees.

As to your final point, I would again point to the fact that I'm arguing about the ethics of the existence of billionaires. They play by the rules of the free market, but that doesn't make them ethical. Purchase of goods drives a portion of their profits, but they maximise that profit through underpayment and mistreatment of employees (who are inherently vital to their wealth). I would argue that anyone who does that is unethical, and anyone would be hard pressed to find a billionaire whose wealth isn't in some way linked to these things. I don't think it is irrational to criticise billionaires whilst spending money through their companies, as often factors such as low wages and poverty force us to participate in their provision of cheap goods.

REFERENCES

[1] https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572

[2] https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/

[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/27/tesla-violated-labor-laws-by-blocking-union-organizing-judge-rules.html

[4] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/24/how-amazon-prevents-unions-by-surveilling-employee-activism.html

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/24/rightwing-billionaires-union-rights

Pineapple on pizza is the 2020 of toppings. It'll make you re-evaluate what you put in your mouth, and there's a good chance your taste-buds will take a hit. That's if you had any to begin with.

You're combining a deeply acidic fruit with an acidic tomato base, and calling it a good time. You wouldn't slap a bit of cheddar on a banana, you wouldn't grate some Parmesan onto your strawberry, you wouldn't steal a car, so why steal a mov- wait wrong speech.

I'm not going to be so bold as to call those that like pineapple on pizza problematic, but I think there's a strong case for strictly monitoring them in case of any further human rights violations.

Gordon Ramsey once said 'pineapple does not go on top of pizza' [1], and this is a man who once placed 2 slices of bread around a chef's head and called them an idiot sandwich [2], so you know he speaks from a place of authority.

Next time your friend suggests getting pineapple on pizza, I want you to remember the NOPE system:

Notice they have a problem
Order something different
Proceed to remove them from your life
Enjoy a life free from such people

REFERENCES

[1] https://twitter.com/GordonRamsay/status/849177082177482754?s=20

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV3_UHG73oQ

In literary criticism, modern readings of classic texts that criticise the work from a modern understanding of morality are sometimes seen as an unimportant and futile endeavor. It is taken for granted that, for example, Charlotte Brontë, as a woman living in the 19th century, would have views on race that do not align with our current ones. Yet I believe it is incredibly important that we do view these works through a modern lens, as following literary criticism throughout different era's of society gives us a better understanding of societal morality, and important reminders of how far we have come.

Going further with the example of Charlotte Brontë's work, we can use Jane Eyre as evidence of this. The novel is heralded by many as an important piece of feminist literature, that stood against patriarchal standards that were the norm during its time of publication. And yet looking at it through a modern lens, it can be argued that whilst it certainly does revolt against societal sexism, it contains passages that perpetuate racist stereotypes.

Throughout the text, Brontë repeatedly uses racial language to describe both the oppressed (such as the problematic description of Bertha Rochester, a racially ambiguous character, as having "swelled" and "dark" lips) and the oppressor (such as describing Blanche Ingram, one of Jane's rivals, as being as "dark as a Spaniard") [1]. Literary critic Susan L. Meyer argues that 'by using dark-skinned peoples to signify not only the oppressed but also the oppressor, Brontë dramatically empties the signifier of dark skin in her novel of any of its meaning in historical reality, and makes it merely expressive of "otherness" .' [2]

Meyer is looking at Brontë's work through a somewhat modern (1990) lens, and in doing so finds Jane Eyre's brand of feminism to be an entirely white-focused one. Brontë still seems to exhibit the colonial anxieties of her time that saw anyone who wasn't white as having within them a certain savagery and otherness. To this day, feminism is still criticised as being racist, focusing its efforts on uplifting white women, whilst ignoring the often worse treatment of black women.

It is all too easy to brush away contemporary criticism of classic literature in the assumption that "of course it was racist/sexist/homophobic, it was written years ago". But by viewing it through a modern lens, we force ourselves to consider the world we live in today, and reflect on how much, or how little, we have progressed.

REFERENCES

Brontë, Charlotte, Jane Eyre (London: Penguin, 1996)

[2] Meyer, Susan L, 'Colonialism and the Figurative Strategy of Jane Eyre' in Victorian Studies Vol. 33, No. 2 (Winter 1990), pp. 247 - 268 (p. 261).

I think that is a very fair point.

I think for our criticism to be meaningful, it must come from a place of contemporary experience and truth. It makes little sense to me to avoid critiquing literature based on a shift in values.

I don't think this excludes classic literature from still being considered great works, and Jane Eyre is one of my favorite novels. But I think there is a certain (to use a loaded term) dishonesty to critiquing a novel and ignoring problematic aspects, just because of the context and time it was written in.

I've always really liked the argument that taking down the statues is historical in itself. It (hopefully) represents a turning point in society in which we acknowledge our colonial past and begin to make reparations.

The amount of people who I personally had never heard of until their statue was removed has taught me more about them than their statue being there ever did. Surely this is therefore of more historical value than keeping a statue that celebrates an incredibly problematic person

Is absoluteness the criteria of something's existence? I would argue that the notions of 'good' and 'evil' existing in essentially every culture, despite differences of what those things are, suggests that there is such a thing as evil.

Evil is simply a term that we prescribe to acts that we consider irredeemable. What that act may be can vary from person to person, culture to culture, but ultimately, if we as an individual consider it to be evil, then evil surely does exist, even if just on a personal level.

If we liken good and evil to hot and cold, then we can see how our personal experiences affect how we view things on a personal gauge. Cold is the absence of heat, and not necessarily an absolute temperature. As such, our consideration of what is cold will vary based on our background, such as the climate we are accustomed to. And yet we still accept the existence of things being 'cold', because language when used in this way helps others to understand our experiences.

Surely the same can be said of the word 'evil'? Whilst not an absolute and objective truth, it is still a term that helps others to understand what we consider to be right or wrong. If I say that rape is an evil act, surely that must mean that evil does exist to me, and does so in the form of such an act?

In 2018, Rockstar Games, one of the industry's most celebrated video game developers, released Red Dead Redemption 2. Highly anticipated even by those who rarely play games, the pressure to succeed was apparent to all. Rockstar were aiming to raise the bar for open-world video games, and to strive as close to perfection as they could. But perfection and high expectations come at a cost, and ultimately it is the developers who pay the price.

Leading up to the release date, the grim reality of the work required to make the game was becoming more and more apparent. Dan Houser, co-founder and writer at Rockstar games revealed in an interview that the team were pulling 100 hour weeks to get the game ready in time [1]. Although he later clarified that he meant only the senior writing team, reports soon came out regarding the crunch (an industry term that refers to an intense period of working long hours in order to get a game ready on time) that, although not mandatory, was expected and encouraged. Weekends were lost to the development of the game, mental health was impacted in many, and even relationships were damaged [2].

There was a very human cost to creating the game, and it is one that is widespread, even accepted, throughout the industry.

Every few years, a fresh story will emerge detailing the terrible conditions in which the largest video games are produced, and every few years the world forgets. 2004 saw the 'EA Spouse Letter' that first sparked the debate around crunch and its effects on the families of developers, bolstered by another spousal letter in 2010 written by the spouses of Rockstar developers forced to work long hours [3]. And more recently in 2020, CD Projekt Red were criticised for their mismanagement of Cyberpunk 2077, a game that had some developers crunching for over a year, and yet still released in a broken state [4].

All of these stories tell us that there is a fundamental problem with the way that video games are being developed, where product comes first, and employee health second. Developers cannot rely on the customers to demand better working conditions, because the simple fact is - the vast majority of the general public don't know about the crunch required, and many of those that do simply do not care. Instead they must unionise, a strategy that has worked time and time again to protect workers' rights, and prevent them from being taken advantage of in the brutal capitalist society they live in [5].

Until they do, developers will continue to have their passion for working in the industry exploited, and in a few years time, another story will come out of overworked developers, pushed to their limits for the sake of an entertainment product, whose profits will line the pockets of shareholders and CEO's.

REFERENCES

[1] https://vulture.com/2018/10/the-making-of-rockstar-games-red-dead-redemption-2.html

[2] https://kotaku.com/inside-rockstar-games-culture-of-crunch-1829936466

[3] https://www.businessinsider.com/video-game-development-problems-crunch-culture-ea-rockstar-epic-explained-2019-5?r=US&IR=T#a-trio-of-recent-blockbusters-red-dead-redemption-2-anthem-and-fortnite-are-the-subjects-of-major-investigations-detailing-the-messy-work-of-creating-blockbuster-games-4

[4] https://www.polygon.com/2020/12/4/21575914/cyberpunk-2077-release-crunch-labor-delays-cd-projekt-red

[5] https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0113/are-labor-unions-effective.aspx

I think there is absolutely something to be said about creative industries and the inevitability of crunch. And I don't necessarily think that short time crunching is a bad thing. However I think the problem comes when there is a culture created in these studios that, although not demanding crunch, strongly suggests that a good employee would surely want to sacrifice their weekends to developing the game, and to do otherwise would be letting the team down.

For example, when the working conditions of CD Projekt Red was leaked, there was a report that management were handing out tokens to employees that they felt were putting in extra hard work. When the game released, those employees with tokens would be given a bonus, providing the game's critical reception was good enough (https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/11/22170655/cyberpunk-2077-cd-projekt-red-developers-staff-bonuses-review-score)

The interesting thing about game development is that often the creative side of the process will be completed a year in advance of the game's release. The rest of the time is spent polishing and ironing out any technical issues and bugs. The only reason that they are having to crunch is to hit deadlines that many publishers are not willing to move on. I think unions would help in this regard, to help change the culture from "higher ups want it out by this date so you need to put as many hours as needed to get it done" to an approach that recognises deadlines but also employee health.