What do Muslim Extremists Want from the West?
Though it varies a bit from group to group, the general idea is this.
Radical Muslims essentially believe they are fighting a defensive war, the only type of war Islam permits. They claim that the West has been colonizing, exploiting, and supporting oppressive regimes in the Middle East for centuries, and that such actions justify a violent response from Muslims who are sick of it.
As we know, the key to any great con, is having one part of it being true. In this case, the West IS guilty of exploiting/colonizing the Muslim world for centuries, and these actions do engender natural violent response.
Of course, Extremists take it further, by claiming that all Muslim governments that cooperate with these Western powers also deserve to be destroyed. That all Muslims who don’t join their struggle are “against them”, and deserve to be killed. That all citizens who live in Western countries are guilty of the destruction caused by their governments, because we pay taxes and vote for them.
In short, Muslim extremists have taken a VERY popular idea in Islam (resisting oppression), and twisted it into a “us against them” mentality that justifies anything.
Sources: Osama Bin Ladin’s manifesto post 9/11 for starters.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver
-KaliKwad
Why does Michael Bay get shit*ed on for directing Michael Bay films, but the Fast and Furious movies are somewhat beloved, despite being Michael Bayish?
Fast and Furious gets away with it with audiences for several reasons:
Well directed action: While some of the action in FF7 I found a bit hard to follow at times, the series has maintained large scale action on a cohesive level. Despite how ludicrous stuff gets, space and movement in the action is always well defined. Compare it to a scene from Transformers 2, where there could be some great action going on, but is nearly incomprehensible due to how it’s filmed and edited. Fast and Furious 3, 5 and 6 especially really upped their game in both stakes and relativity in how stunts are choreographed and action is displayed. It’s fun that can be followed.
Characters: People like them. It’s funny when you give a character even the slightest amount of discernible personality in a long running series like this, people will become attached. There’s chemistry between the cast, you get the sense that the actors enjoy themselves and like being around each other. Heck, half the reason I go see these movies is to see Roman crack wise. Audiences actually give a shit about what happens to them, even if at this stage they are invincible.
Audiences are in on the joke: I think this is the biggest difference between Bay’s films and Fast and Furious. They are both ridiculous, unsubtle, loud and obnoxious, but the Fast and Furious franchise have evolved to a level of slight self-awareness that sets itself up to be laughed at how stupid it is. With Bay’s films, while immature, are usually serious in tone and style. Fast and Furious wants you to think it’s dumb, Bay wants you to know you are dumb for watching this.
- GreedE
How does ‘getting used’ to spicy food actually work?
When you repeated eat spicy food you’re over stimulating the receptors that sense heat. The receptors deactivate themselves so they can better handle the heat. It’s kind of like having an annoying younger brother who you eventually just decide to start ignoring instead of dealing with.
- DrWizzle
Why is a transgender person not considered to have a mental illness?
Transgender person here, and your question is a good one (or at least, a common one that really isn’t answered clearly very often)
The short answer is: yes, Trans people are considered to have a disorder. Gender Identity Disorder and Gender Dysphoria are disorders recognized in the DSM.
There have been a few studies establishing certain evidence to support the idea that this is inherent (a few having to do with brain mapping/MRIs pop up now and again) but the funding and interest for serious, driven research into the field just hasn’t been there until recently. A lot of existing studies are either too old to be taken seriously or flawed due to lack of funding or existing bias. The best guess right now is that the brain is just wired to expect a different set of physical characteristics than it has, and thus causes dysphoria as a way of expressing that it thinks there is something wrong with ones body.
Your question seems to be more “Why don’t we get these transgender people mental help instead of physical modifications to their body” and the answer is:
-
Trans people already have to have years of therapy from multiple doctors and therapists to get the required letters of recommendation (verification that therapists and doctors have confidence that the person does experience Gender Dysphoria and that they believe that sexual transition would be beneficial to the patient’s mental health) needed to get hormones and SRS (sexual reassignment surgery) and no form of conversion therapy has worked anywhere near consistently.
-
It is just easier (at this point in time, at least) to modify the body to reduce dysphoria than it is to modify the brain to stop dysphoria altogether.
As far as what I can describe to you from personal experience, I am not in denial about the fact that I have a penis and that I grow facial hair and that my body produces testosterone. I can tell you that the physical presence of these things causes constant distress, feelings of depression and self hate, the whole nine yards. When I wear female clothes, ask you to call me by a different name or use different pronouns, wear makeup, etc., it is more to fool my unconscious self and distract it from the fact that certain parts of my body just feel wrong.
Plenty of other similar conditions, like Body Dysmorphic Disorder, have long been recognized and accepted by the medical community. Sometimes the brain expects your body to be different than it is.
It’s like if you were to take the hard drive out of one computer and into a different computer. You’ll probably be able to boot and do most things, but you’ll occasionally get some errors because that hard drive and the Operating System inside has been set up to expect a certain hardware configuration in the computer, and has problems when what hardware it thinks you have differs from the hardware you actually hook up to it. We (the medical community) don’t know how to reprogram the computer yet, so switching out hardware is the next easiest thing.
Trust me, if there was a pill that got rid of my dysphoria so that I felt content with my male sex characteristics, I would imagine that would be far easier and pain free to take than years of hormone therapy and multiple, very expensive surgeries. Such a thing doesn’t exist yet, so I only have one other choice.
EDIT: I should mention that my experiences doesn’t cover every one you hear. There has been a push in certain groups to remove gender dysphoria from being the identifying factor of being transgender, and make it solely an “identity”. I personally take issue with this (as it removes all scientific aspects from the issue), but many trans people support the idea or just don’t care. It’s the internet, and Reddit is a great trolling ground when the Tumblr bloggers want to stir up trouble. You are likely to hear lots of different opinions.
- hotchocletylesbian
Why is “suspension” from school a punishment?
Suspension is less of a punishment for that student and more of a way to remove the disruption for the other students so that they can continue to learn without the interruption of that particular student.
A suspension happens when a student may be of danger to others (physical fight, weapon possession). It is a control measure, not a punishment. It is a consequence, and a consequence is not always a punishment. Students usually recieve further consequences upon resolving a suspension.
- blackarya
How did this piece of art sell for over $86 million dollars?
The thing to remember about contemporary art is that it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Rothko wasn’t just saying “isn’t this pretty?” any more than Hemingway was just writing about an old man and the sea. Contemporary art is in a conversation with every painting that came before it. But since that conversation is long, entirely visual and not well-publicized (articles that mention how much a piece was sold for never talk about why), it can be really difficult to understand what an artist is saying just from looking at it.
I’ll try to give a brief overview of the narrative leading up to Rothko. This well be over-simplified and contain errors:
Painting for a long time after the Renaissance was about the rules of positing. How too paint people. How to use color, shadow, and contrast. Composition. You worked really hard to learn these rules, then tried to improve the art. This produced a bunch of beautiful paintings that approached photorealism.
Then people started to question these rules. They started to intentionally break them to see what would happen. Impressionists started painting everyday scenes instead of royal portraits. They made things blurry, top capture emotions rather than detail. They used visible brush strokes, at once reminding the viewer that they were looking at a positing, not a real landscape, and making the painters presence, and personality, an important party of the aesthetic experience.
Then you have a bunch of movements that continue along this trajectory, breaking long-established rules about how one should paint. Post-impressionism distorted forms to express a mood, used color wildly, abstracted real objects into geometric shapes. Surrealism, cubism, art nouveau, and a ton of other movements played with these themes and tried new things.
By the time the mid-20th century rolls around, it seems like every taboo had been broken. How many ways can you paint a still-life? One solution was to not paint anything. As in any thing. A painting didn’t have to be anything but an expression of the artist’s creativity, or a commentary on painting itself, without having to use a subject (a landscape, a nude) as a vector for the ideas. Painting could just be about painting, our the process of painting, or the experience of looking at a painting.
Rothko’s journey followed a similar trajectory to the one I’ve described for all modern art. He stayed painting as an impressionist, doing landscapes, city scenes, etc. with influence from the Surrealists, he became interested in myth and mythology, and the compares turned him onto primitive art and children’s art. All this was in an attempt to hack into something deep inside the viewer, to express an idea in a visual language that was more direct and pure than painting a seaside scene. He would use simple symbols that were meant to hit the viewer deep. Unfortunately, these works weren’t well-received, so he figured his theories weren’t right. He broke with surrealism and went full abstract.
This was the beginning of his “multiforms”, the paintings he is most famous for (including the one above). The theory was, as best as I can understand it:
When you look at a painting of a tiger, you are not just looking at the tiger. You are relating it top every other time you’ve seen a tiger, which lets you pull back from the experience, view it from above, not from within, experience the tiger only from a distance. But when you look at his paintings, they aren’t “of”anything. You’re not allowed to reduce it and categorize it. You have to dive into it, experience it, let it seep into you. He recommended that you get as close to 18 inches from the canvas so as to really immerse yourself and confront the unknown.
This discussion is definitely flawed and very incomplete, but I hope it helps illustrate why this want just a hack saying “ain’t these colors purdy”, and why some people may think it’s quite valuable.
- UWillAlwaysBALoser
How do they re-attach severed limbs?
When body parts are reattached, the most important thing to get right is blood flow. The arteries and veins are all reconnected as best as possible. This is needed to keep the part alive. Muscles and nerves are also reconnected to give you sensation and movement. The skin is the last to be reconnected. If you just taped a finger tip in place, it wouldn’t have the blood flow, and just die.
How does career progression in criminal gangs work?
Mexican gangs work like this were I’m originally from. You start of as a baby. You put in you work eg; (killing people, committing robberies) for a couple years and you get to change your nickname from baby spider to lil spider. Once you been in for years and become the older of the bunch, you get to drop the lil and become spider. It takes about 6-10 years to reach this point. You receive the title of veterano and become a made man. The hardest of the gang, at this point your no longer expected to commit crimes but are in charge of leading the gang and setting up the meetings.
- airforcepenguin
Why isn’t caffeine dependency considered a ‘drug addiction’?
Because with few exceptions, caffeine doesn’t disrupt your life in any meaningful way. It’s cheap and legal, which means people don’t go broke or get in trouble for doing it. Not getting it can make people grumpy but it’s not life-threatening. It’s not especially bad for you. In many cases, it’s also quite useful for increasing productivity and focus. A key criteria of addiction is that it interferes with normal life and has detrimental effects on you. Since caffeine is so freely and cheaply available these criteria are never met.
- SonOfTK421
Why is American football the nation’s favorite sport instead of soccer like is in practically all other developed nations? What is so typically American about it?
The traditions of sport in each country is normally very closely tied to the political history of the country.
For example, nearly everywhere that cricket is enjoyed is a former member of the British empire, or at least has very close/friendly ties to Britain. More recently it has become popular in Rwanda because refugees spent time in Kenya where it’s popular – and Kenya, of course, has its history with British imperialism.
America obviously has its own history with Britain and Europe in general and politically tried to distance itself from all things British and European in its earliest years as an independent nation.
In fact, in 1776 football (as the rest of the World would call soccer), was barely codified, and so it was at a time of high animosity between England and the US when football was emerging as a sport.
Instead, the United States was more interested in creating its own variations on sports. Baseball was a derivative of English folk games (as was cricket), and American Football emerged as a sort of corruption of rugby and association football.
Quintessentially American, their influence spread to places where the US had influence (central America, etc.), much like football and cricket spread to places with British influence, and then to places where those places had influence.
In short then, American football is popular in America at least in part because it isn’t British.
Also, I think the physical geography and media consumption habits has played its part in the popularity of sports in their respective countries in the last 100 years.
Most people in America probably do not live within 5-10 miles of a professional sports stadium. Most people in Europe do. As such, there is far more of a culture of going to see a game of football or cricket in the UK than there is in the US. This means the games that do well take a while to play, have a constant stream of action and are played by teams with long local histories.
In the US, most people are going to consume sports primarily via media. In the early 20th century this meant that for a sport to get a decent fan base it must get carried by radio – and then TV – and for that to happen the sport itself must be open to being interrupted by adverts or for commentators to make reference to sponsors without interrupting actual detailed commentary, because otherwise there’s little incentive for the media outlets to carry the sport.
A football team in Europe can survive profitably in the lower leagues quite happily if they never have a game covered live on television or radio. That is harder to achieve in the US so the sports you are most likely to be exposed to at a professional level are those that can be interrupted by adverts.
That means American Football wins out over (notoriously difficult to monetise through advertising), “Soccer”. A baseball game taking up a few hours of air time wins out over a sport that takes 5 days to play a game in its fullest form (cricket).
I suspect that Twenty20 cricket might actually do well in the US if given a chance – it feels more like baseball but its less a numbers game and more a chance for sportsmanship.
Lastly, there’s also the accessibility of playing a sport. In America schools and colleges make their variation of “football” accessible, but otherwise it requires a large capital outlay. Soccer doesn’t. Nor, in fact, does rugby, cricket or any other sport popular in most of the rest of the World.
If it is going to cost money in helmets, pads, etc. for a couple of dozen people before you can get a game going, you are going up against a steep hill in most of the World in which you can play an alternative game with a tin can, or an old tennis ball and a chalk outline of a wicket on a wall.
A game that is played plenty as a kid, and is still affordable/accessible at an amateur level as an adult is going to have a larger fan base than one that isn’t. In the US a lot of infrastructure is there to overcome that with American football it makes little/no sense to deploy in the rest of the World.
To answer your question about the “feminine” feel to Soccer in the US, well, part of it is because Americans like to mock Europeans as being a bit feminine in their own right. But there are other reasons.
There is a tactical advantage to receiving an injury in soccer you do not get in any other game. In American Football, if you get winded and are experiencing searing pain suggesting your ankle just got fractured from a failed tackle but you’re 2 yards from the end zone you push through. You need to be tough. If you’re not tough, you’re going to possibly cost the team points or the game, or a title.
In soccer if you’re inside the six yard box and surrounded by defenders and one of them taps you lightly on the shin in a slightly messy tackle you are probably better off feigning injury than you are continuing the play.
In essence, in American Football your team mates expect you to struggle on. In Soccer, your team mates expect you to exploit the laws of the game to gain a possible penalty and to be weaker than you actually are.
So Americans will see soccer players taking a dive and rolling around and think “WTF? The guy hardly touched him!” without realising it’s an important part of the tactics at the top of the game. It’s discouraged, and the fans hate it, but it’s part of the game.
Also, part of the “stigma” is that soccer can be played by women at no major disadvantage below the top professional levels. Most top-level female players can completely outplay experienced amateur males at soccer. It’s just not the case in American football where physical dominance is so critical.
As for Rugby: better type of fans in my experience, rarely any trouble in the crowds, always a good laugh. But it’s a silly game that has weird links to the upper middle classes in England (who oddly think it’s a common/working class game), and seems to be dominated by an outdated Victorian English sense of “toughness” that I don’t like. Never enjoyed playing it, never got into watching it. People who are really into it tend to be a bit rabid about it which worries me.
- p7r
The post 10 Answers To Questions You Always Wondered About appeared first on Caveman Circus.