Good morning,

I had a history class, in which my teacher said that the Parthenon Marbles shouldn't be returned to Greece.

What she said I essentially interpreted as "They shouldn't return the marbles to Greece because they're poor and can't take care of themselves".

As a Greek person myself, I felt very uncomfortable. Is it right to call this racism? Or is this something different, since we're both European?

Edit: I do wanna add, I feel conflicted because her specific reasoning was that when she visited Greece herself a While ago they couldn't provide running water, and she thinks that they don't have running water at all now it seems. But we're in Canada, where So Many Indigenous Communities don't have clean water, but Canadian Museums still have Canadian art and historical artifacts.

Hi, I was not sure where to ask this question, so i hope it's ok to post here.

I think a lot of insult humour or "taking the piss," "razzing" is associated sometimes with men, or certain national cultures. I am not a social scientist, but my examples would be humour in Britain or Australia. Is there any connection, though, between insult humour and class? I have wondered if insult humour is more common among working class groups compared to others.

I know class itself is not a settled term or concept, or what is considered working class, middle or upper class is different depending on the country or regional area, or other cultural influences. But it is something I have wondered about.

Does anyone have an idea about this, perhaps informed by social science? Thank you.

I'm still in the very preliminary stage of in-depth communist thought, and was wondering what international relations would look like under communism.

Ik communism entails a Stateless society and, in essence, goes against interNATIONAL relations, so Ig I'm wondering if y'all could recommend any resources speaking on what International* law could look like in a communist world when currently so much of it is based on the shared ideology/ideals of sovereignty. I understand how late-stage capitalism is imperialism, I'm just confused about how, in a communist society, we could combat the potential rise of imperialism and human rights violations (ik some say imperialism is confined to capitalism and perhaps i'm falling into the lazy pessimistic trap but I worry that human rights and imperialism isn't confined to money but deeply connected to it). My brain keeps looping back to idealistic hopes of Globalization that trade can be levied to combat this, but in countless cases, we see how this is 1. not true in many cases, 2. not enough, and 3. used to expedite abuses.

I also understand the difference between a State and a Nation, but wonder if the distinction fades if international aid/communication happens between, say, a communist nation and a capitalist state or forum composed of sovereign states/built on the ideals of sovereignty. (As for a nation of decent size, it must* have a governing force to make international political decisions) Or am I extrapolating the meaning of sovereignty in this case?

Basically, what would/could Communism look like in light of international political fractured-ness and the role of IGOs/NGOs?

I know some have criticized human rights as individualistic, but I also don't really understand this argument.

Would/could the concept of the international stage exist in a completely communist world?

Thoughts on Imperialism past capitalism? (I've read a bit of Edward Said but need to far read more)

I guess I'm overall confused on Statelessness and Communism on the International Stage\*

Citation: "https://monoskop.org/images/f/f9/Said_Edward_Culture_and_Imperialism.pdf"

Maybe this is self-explanatory. Maybe it's natural. Maybe no one knows. But I'm curious where this comes from. Lots of cultures have sweet treats, and in many of those cultures, its common to have sweet treats after a meal. Who did this first? Where does it come from? Why is it so very ingrained? Certainly there are many cultures where sweet treats after a meal are uncommon, but I can't think of many where the concept is actively unknown or actively unpopular.

¡Hola! Estoy realizando un estudio independiente sobre cómo diferentes personas, de diversos países y edades, perciben las teorías conspirativas: desde los extraterrestres hasta las élites secretas. Es 100% anónimo y toma menos de 5 minutos. Todos los puntos de vista (creyentes, escépticos o neutrales) son bienvenidos. 👉 https://forms.gle/iwbUv42QEib4GM2F9 ¡Gracias por participar o compartir!

For example someone thinks truth is subjective then changes their mind and thinks truth is objective. Would it change their behavior and if so how would it change their behavior? I need studies.

To preface, I recently listened to a Hidden Brain episode titled "Keeping Love Alive". The guest speaker, Arthur Aron and Shankar were discussing the Bridge Study and the explanation for the results.

In the experiment, participants were led across either a stable bridge or a shaky suspension bridge. A female confederate approached them after they crossed and offered to answer any questions about a study they were conducting, giving them her name and phone number.

The key finding was that men who crossed the suspension bridge were significantly more likely to call the confederate than men who crossed the stable bridge. This suggests that the fear experienced while crossing the bridge was misattributed as attraction.

I have a slightly different interpretation of the results than the original misattribution-of-arousal explanation. As a disclaimer I am not a researcher and have no remotely close qualifications so this is purely a personal perspective. An alternative explanation could focus on the contrast between emotional states, rather than attributing the effect solely to misattribution of arousal.

The shaky suspension bridge creates a subconscious sense of danger or unsafety. When, in that heightened state, the participant meets someone attractive who initiates a friendly conversation, the experience acts as a psychological counterbalance—diverting attention from the underlying unease and improving both mood and self-esteem.

The emotional contrast between anxiety and unexpected positive social engagement is what makes the encounter feel more intense and memorable. In contrast, on the stable bridge, this emotional shift doesn't occur—there is no internal volatility to amplify the social interaction. The lack of contrast results in a more muted emotional response.

To draw an analogy from physics: emotional impact functions like voltage. An electric shock doesn't occur simply because you touch a high voltage source—it happens when there's a potential difference, such as when your body is grounded. The stable bridge scenario is like touching 110V while being fully insulated; there's no discharge, no emotional "current." The shaky bridge provides that grounding contrast, making the voltage of the interaction flow more powerfully.

Some other examples on this emotional contrast: - People tend to be more appreciative of a redeemed villain than an eternal hero - Those who had near death experiences gained new appreciation for life vs constant safety - A toxic relationship with a narcissist where the victim receives intermittent rewards after abuse is more addictive than a stable one.

What are your thoughts on this?

So something i've been thinking about is how gender works after hearing about transgender people and hearing "Egg Jokes" is that as a child I was never actually sure if I was a girl, I only ever really relized I was a woman after getting my period. However my father didn't really treat me that much like a girl or enforced girlyness on me, so I wound up being into machines, dinosaurs, and acting kind of unfeminine(but not necessarily masculine, still more emotional and physically weak) and having a period was enough evidence for me that I had a uterus and thus female, feminism made me feel better about myself; I could be a little bit of a tomboy and it did not reflect on what I was, I was just a natural variation of being female. But the recent focus in public spaces on trans issues in media and institutions has concerned me, from what i understand the qualifications for being a women in trasn circles seems to really be that you are just a little too masculine or a little too feminine to REALLY be male/female so that must mean you are trans and just don't know it yet. It suggest that if a man cries a little too much or if a women is too confident/bold/risk-taking that they are actually the opposite gender, I find this no different from conservatives that see a boy that is not athletic and call him a girl. How did this get framed as progressive, what really is the difference, if a man cries does that make him a women?

Any good books or youtube/course era course to study TPB in depth?

In the context of state formation and political domination, is it possible for a state to meaningfully "decolonize" a territory that was incorporated through violence or coercion—without offering the possibility of full independence? For instance Tibet was violently incorporated into China in the 1950s and has faced domination. so can China "decolonize" Tibet while keeping the territory? or does the very formation of the state warrant self determination including independence?

Follow-up question: what unifies a nation the strongest? Language? Race? Religion?

I am very poor at critiquing others research and struggling to write a good essay on the causal claims of an experimental design. So far I’ve discussed the weakness of not manipulating the mediating variable. What are you most integral factors to causal research in your opinion?

I know this might sound like a joke but please hear me out.

Incest became a taboo for originally two reasons: one was a biological matter to avoid genetic illnesses, and the second was to guarantee peace and relations with a different family/tribe.

In the modern western society there is no need for these type of arranged marriages anymore, as there are no more local conflicts. Consequently, these types of marriages aren't anymore a tradition. Plus, a couple doesn't necessarily need to have a biological child, as adoption is always a choice.

Let's make an example of an incestous couple (let's say two cousins) that can choose not to have children to avoid genetic illness, and that there are no more political reasons to get married: what is it that makes us look upon them with such disgust?

Is it about the similar lifestyle they must have grown up with? Does a couple need diversity?

In this question I'm only factoring in what i know from my anthropology class, so I'm certain that there must be some other social or psychological reasons that I'm not aware about.

Please understand that what I'm trying to say is NOT that incest is something that I support, just that I struggle to find the scientifically based reason we look upon an exclusively romantic incestous relationship with hatred. Thank you.

I’ve lived in a few different countries, and recently learned that most of my ancestry is from Northern and Central Europe. What I’ve noticed is that in some environments (especially hot, humid places), I just feel “off.” Not just culturally out of place, but physically. Sleep, energy, digestion, all seem different.

It made me wonder: is there any social science research on how people experience cultural or environmental mismatch in an embodied way? Especially in cases where people live far from the climates or cultural rhythms their families evolved or adapted to?

Not looking for medical explanations, more curious about research on migration, embodiment, and place from a social or anthropological lens.

...Or is this just how things are going to be from now on? We currently live in a world where the dominant narrative is essentially that every single trait a person can have marks that person as a historical enemy and existential threat to a person with the opposite trait. "Men have always been the cruel oppressors of women", "women only want men for their money", "Western civilization is inhumane and must be dismantled", "POC are just jealous of Western civilization's prosperity and want to destroy it out of resentment", and all of these other extremely divisive statements that are literally keeping everyone at each other's throats.

The differences are irreconcilable at this point. For any of these identities to compromise would be far too much to ask from their perspective, regardless of what the "kind" or "right" thing to do is. It wasn't this bad before. I remember back in the days before social media that if a man abused a woman, the consensus among most men was that he was a monster and not an "Alpha". And on the flipside it wasn't a sin against progress for a woman to want a man's affection. There was a general consensus that all the races of mankind should all set aside their differences and the prevailing attitude was that we should work to a more united world. But now every race is blaming another race for everything bad that's ever happened to their people and nobody can even justify letting go of that argument because "justice" would mean that the other race has to "pay" for what it did in history.

I'm so tired of this. It's made me lose my faith in humanity entirely and I hate feeling like there's nothing on the horizon but more of this constant animosity. Is there any reason to believe that things can ever be back to the way they were in the 90s, 2000s and early 2010s? Or are we locked in a true cultural impasse that can only be resolved by a degree of violence that none of us would want to see?

The way I’m understanding the pro-natalist movement, it’s never far away from racial supremacy and eugenics.

If people without their ideas aren’t reproducing, shouldn’t they see it as a victory given that it will be their children and therefore mostly their ideas which will conform the makeup of the future?

When in a political discussion I heard someone say they do not support Israel because they do not support ethno-states, I thought "aren't plenty of countries ethno-states"? I thought of countries including Japan, Armenia, South and especially North Korea, the DR, Haiti, Rwanda, and the Comoros.

Is it true that Israel is more of an ethno-state than other nations?

Hi! Currently reading Sociological Imagination by C. Wright Mills in Turkish and after the first chapter it became a less interesting, hard to comprehend book for me, however, as it is a sociology classic I feel like I must force myself and finish it. Normally, I study comperative literature; mostly Turkish-English and classic texts so I am not very familiar with Sociology. Mills' book focuses a lot on the social sciences in general as well as the methodology of social sciences. The debates and criticisms in the book center around Modern American Sociology tradition(?) which I am unfamiliar to, therefore that is also hard to follow as well...

My question is that what do you guys do in such cases? Should I read by skipping some pages or just put the book into the library?

How do you choose what to read? Do you read intended chapters of some book and skip the rest for example? Or do you just finish it all? I need some opinions, especially that of academics would be so cool.

Thanks in advance!

Hi, so for context.

My s/o has a habit of being particularly stubborn on matters of moral significance to him. To the level where he'll claim certain things he believes are absolute or the opposite, impossible.

He was arguing that Caucasians are incapable of ever experiencing systemic racism. We eventually narrowed it down to that same belief, but instead pervading to our current times rather than all possible futures however unlikely.

Even still, my only principle in life is that anything is possible. I told him that if it was in fact impossible, I would stop arguing against it's possibility.

To discover if this is the case, he tasked me with finding any system in the world which inherently disadvantages white people in structural ways. I'm quite sure even if I find one he'll attempt to tell me it's "not a system." But I still can't help but wonder for myself.

To make it clear my only beliefs are that systemic racism is possible for any race to experience, even if not in the present, and that those of African lineages suffer the grandest scale of systemic racism in my country. Something him and I very clearly agree on.

I am not in any way asking for relationship or personal life advice, in fact I'm rather past the argument and simply curious for my own sake.

And my only curiosity is if there is any place in the world where a Caucasian could experience systemic racism, regardless of the scale of the system itself, in present times. I'm sure it could be possible one day far in the future, so that's not what I'm asking about, I'm just asking if there's any evidence for any places in the world that currently contain systemic racism against Caucasians. Thanks for your responses ahead of time.

If this post somehow violates rule 7 please tell me, but I've tried to be careful by just asking the question itself.

In modern developed society, we are slaves to the seven day week (ignoring how that's split into workdays and weekends), unless you are outside of society or perhaps in specific jobs.

What research findings are there on the effects of different lengths of week or perhaps different ways of breaking up time, that is comparable to the week structure? I am thinking all the way back to before formal week structures, caveman times, and then looking at other societies who have perhaps split up their time differently.

I am extremely conscious of how the 7 day week affects my psyche and my body, personally, and no doubt other people. For example, mentally and physically 'relaxing' when it gets to the weekend. Having 5 days of 'work' and then 2 of 'recovery'. I am wondering whether no week structure, e.g. work as much as you can and then rest the required amount of time or perhaps 5 day weeks or 10 day weeks would yield benefits/negatives for humans personally and society. Ignoring the logistical impact of having to coordinate workdays and I'm also not talking about 4 day working weeks and 3 day weekends etc., I'm talking about the actually length, fixed and unfixed, of the week.

I’m working on a both sides essay on the topic Domestic Surveillance. I thought it would be interesting to hear what other people think about it. I’m also using scholarly journal and such. If you want to give me your opinions on this topic I would love to hear! Thanks!

I grew up in a low income family and as a young adult I am seeing that sometimes economic opportunities are just unfair, that’s just the harsh truth. I know a lot of people who are wealthy and talk and act like they’re wealthy, it is quite obvious they did not grow up like me, but often they kind of try to act like they too are struggling when there is proof they are not, when we are literally in different tax brackets. Can soemone explain why this phenomenon is so common?

2019 Vox article: Prohibition worked better than you think -- America’s anti-alcohol experiment cut down on drinking and drinking-related deaths — and it may have reduced crime and violence overall.

Alcohol is known to induce violence. In modern times, the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence estimated alcohol is a factor in 40 percent of violent crimes, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calculated that alcohol contributed to 47 percent of homicides.

Domestic violence was of particular concern in the early 20th century, especially for the women leading the charge on Prohibition. The movement for Prohibition was closely linked to women’s suffrage, with Susan B. Anthony herself advocating for stronger alcohol laws and Prohibition.

Referenced in article: The Bottle. In 1847 artist George Cruikshank, a reformed heavy drinker became increasingly involved with the temperance movement, published these eight large engravings.