Quite an alarming article from The Economist. Strange that a country where the vast majority of people support gay rights, still has this form of legislation...
I just heard an audio ad on Pandora with an obviously black female voice stating how she likes to reward her children with Big Macs and chicken nuggets when they complete their homework. Big Macs, otherwise known as beef-flavored salt mash in the shape of a burger, and chicken nuggets, which are grease-laden, and artery plaque-building, are maybe the worst things you can give to a child.
So many TV and YouTube ads feature the same thing: an urban black person seeking solace and sustenance in a fast food meal. As comedian Katt Williams stated in a stand up special, fast food chains like Popeyes always feature "some coonery or some shit," pandering to the subcultural belief that black people hold a special place in their hearts in which to worship fast food. Some of the recent ads I've seen, especially Popeyes, almost seem as if they were made by a racist 1930s cartoonist attempting to be as off-putting as possible.
Reinforcing fast food as a reward for poor people, and their children, has been pushed heavily for decades. However, it seems to be disproportionately targeting inner city people of color the most.
"Junk food ads disproportionately target black and Hispanic kids, study finds" https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/junk-food-ads-disproportionately-target-black-hispanic-kids-study-finds-n959111
According to MarketWatch: "Some 86% of spending on food advertising targeting African-American consumers and 82% of spending on food advertising targeting Hispanic consumers is for unhealthy items like fast food, candy, sugary drinks, and unhealthy snacks, a study released this week found. Black children saw 86% more ads than their white peers in 2017 and black teens saw 119% more ads than their white peers."
With heavy restrictions on EBT/food stamps, simple foods in grocery stores such as "hot meals," or deli sandwiches, cannot be purchased. So, assuming access to healthy food beyond a fast food chain or convenience store is even possible, many people in poorer urban areas cannot eat the "wrong" foods.
"How McDonald's Used To Advertise To Black People" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87nJ-wNEYa4
This viral video of a black man singing a passionate, soulful tune in response to coming home to Popeyes (aka one more straw on the camel's back that is known as congestive heart failure) was included in some commercials: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRWToqYaD_4
"Popeyes Commercial 2020" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v... keep reading on reddit ➡
Affection imbalance in a relationship ??
I feel like there’s an affection imbalance in my relationship. I’m not sure how to explain or what to call it... but basically it goes like this: (I (25F) live with my boyfriend (28M) of 3 years)
>I am doing my own life, I give him a random kiss here and there, I’m not too affectionate, sort of like playing hard to get without really intending to. >He’s all over me. Coming to see what I’m up to in the home office. Kissing me. Telling me how hot I am. Wanting to have sex. Seeking my attention and love. >I then start to reciprocate that love, being completely vulnerable and get very affectionate, kissing him, cuddling him, telling him I love him, doing nice things for him, etc. >Then he basically pulls away. Doesn’t kiss me, doesn’t hug me, doesn’t cuddle me, as if we’re two flatmates, not lovers. >Then I become cold, start doing my own thing again, not giving him love (not intentionally but more because I feel betrayed for having given so much and then treated like I barely exist so I no longer feel that love towards him). >Then he starts being all cute again, coming to see what I’m up to, kissing me, all over me, etc.
And the cycle continues like that over and over and over. Basically as if he gets his needs met and then just keeps me around for when he’s feeling the need for love and affection again.
Anyone have any insight to this type of situation? What’s the problem here and what do I do about it?
TL;DR: My boyfriend is all over me when I’m more distant and as soon as I’m vulnerable and affectionate he basically forgets my existence
This write-up in the Guardian covers most of the details. Those cited in the article are treating this as a literally unprecedented discovery that upends everything we thought we knew about etc. etc., but claiming this about discoveries of this sort is almost a trope at this point. I'm already seeing some wincing from friends who know more about ancient art than I do, so I'll ask here.
Is this discovery being oversold to the public? Is it even legitimate?
Are "readings" of the art that involve some of its more surprising contents defensible? I mean:
> Their date is based partly on their depictions of now-extinct ice age animals, such as the mastodon, a prehistoric relative of the elephant that hasn’t roamed South America for at least 12,000 years. There are also images of the palaeolama, an extinct camelid, as well as giant sloths and ice age horses.
> Some of the paintings are so high they can only be viewed with drones. Iriarte believes that the answer lies in depictions of wooden towers among the paintings, including figures appearing to bungee jump from them.
Plese correct me if anything I have listed below is incorrect.
IIRC Star Wars inspired Ridley’s Scott’s Alien(Edit: this was not correct.)
IIRC Star Wars 1977 was what caused James Cameron to want to be a movie maker meaning that if it wasn’t for Star Wars then the Terminator movies, Titanic, Aliens and Avatar wouldn’t exist.
Star Wars allowed for the creation of a computer division group within Lucasfilm called Graphics Group that would later become a little studio known today as Pixar.
Star Wars resulted in the creation of the Indiana Jones franchise which resulted in the creation of the Tomb Raider and the Uncharted franchise.
IIRC Star Wars 1977 along with Close encounter of the third kind made Paramount willing to invest in a Star Trek movie which resulted in the creation of the Star Trek the Motion Picture which resulted in the creation of of Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan which resulted in the creation of Star Trek III the Search for Spock which resulted in the creation of Star Trek IV Voyage Home which resulted in the creation of of Star Trek The Next Generation which resulted in the creation of all the other Star Trek shows and movies meaning that if it hadn’t been for Star Wars 1977 Star Trek would have only been one show from the 60s with a cult following and not the huge franchise we know today. Picard, Worf, Data, Troi, Doctor Crusher, The Borg, Sisko, Odo, Quark, Janeway etc would not have existed if it wasn’t for Star Wars. This also most likely resulted in the creation of Orville. Red Dwarf and Futurama.
IIRC after Star Wars’s premiere Mattel turned down making Star Wars toys for Lucasfilm and when they realized their mistake they created their own franchise to make action figures of and the result was He-Man and the Masters of the Universe.
Kōhei Horikoshi, the creator of My Hero Acadamia is a huge Star Wars fan and you can see it being referenced throughout the MHA story.
Please tell me if you can come up with any more.
I was watching this video about ADHD to see if I really do have all the symptoms and if it’s worth getting diagnosed. The video played a skit where someone placed a remote down on a table, looked away for a few minutes then turned back towards the controller. The controller just disappeared and I seriously questioned reality because that’s happened to me more times than I can count
Anyone else? I swear there was a point in 2017-2018 where I thought this country was on the brink of a civil war or some freaking societal collapse lol and now I don't even follow ANY NEWS and honestly life feels pretty comfy bros and I dig living with my fellow South Africans again.
Christians believe their god created the universe, designing and fine-tuning the laws of physics that govern it. Natural phenomena, i.e. earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, including all the suffering and evil they cause, are the direct outcome of these laws of physics.
If god is responsible for designing and fine-tuning the laws of physics, he is responsible for all of the suffering and evil in the universe.
To evade god's responsibility for the existence of all suffering and evil, Christians have devised a large number of excuses, none of them convincing.
Here are three very common ones Christians rely on:
(1.) The first is to justify moral evil by invoking libertarian free will, but this is self-refuting. If actions and intentions are caused, our will isn't free; if uncaused or acausal, our will is random and randomness isn't freedom (not to mention an uncaused will contradicts the Christian belief everything has a cause, except god).
The evidence of neuroscience shows us the causal dependence of mental states on brain states. Accordingly, every human behaviour has its corresponding neurophysiology. The human propensity for evil is the outcome of the same laws of physics that allow for earthquakes and volcanoes. These laws were designed and fine-tuned by god.
The free will "defense" does not allow god to evade his responsibility for all suffering and evil in the universe.
(2.) Some Christians say god has morally sufficient reasons for allowing suffering and evil. But what about animal suffering? From the perspective of the geological time-scale, animal suffering has gone on for much longer than human suffering, and is many times greater, yet is of no value to animals. Why?
According to Christian theology, animals have no free will, knowledge of god or immortal soul. This inevitably means animals can't be improved by suffering and evil, nor do they need to be improved, because they have no prospect of life after death. The existence of animal suffering shows us god lacks morally sufficient reasons for allowing suffering and evil.
So much for divine omnibenevolence.
(3.) Finally, when all else fails, Christians will blame everything on Satan and his angels, a totally arbitrary excuse. If god designed and fine-tuned the laws of physics, natural disasters are inevitable and therefore cannot be the work of Satan.
Assuming for argument's sake Satan and his angels can interfere with the workings of nature and lead mankind astray, god could... keep reading on reddit ➡
Depending on who you ask you get a lot of different answers on ‘what’ god is. But most often it’s portrayed as an omnipotent being beyond our comprehension. To me it seems that by trying to apply our science to what is assumed to be so vastly beyond our understanding, we are undoubtedly at the mercy of human error. There’s different phenomena here on earth and in our universe that break what we consider to be the laws of science, for example, water that runs uphill, or the background radiation of the whole universe is the same temperature everywhere despite (by our understanding) not having enough time to have reached an equal temperature throughout the whole thing. By no means do these phenomena prove god or serve as evidence of a higher power. My reason for mentioning them was just to demonstrate worldly things that science cannot for sure explain. There’s theories and observations that have been made but we can’t say for certain. So for me this just poses a question. If we can’t always use science to prove things on earth, is it reliable when talking about omnipotent being(s) who would not be bound by any laws of science or physics? There’s probably a much simpler explanation than what I’ve found but this question has just been on my mind for a while.