Adam Ruins Everything - General Discussion

[Thrifty]

I like this show!  It is so well researched and informative!  No I'm not just saying that because it reaffirms all my pre existing prejudices about things and the information is delivered in an entertaining way!  Short, punchy comedy where nobody else gets to express opposing views is definitely the best way to get informed!

[possibilities]

5 hours ago, Thrifty said:

I like this show!  It is so well researched and informative!  No I'm not just saying that because it reaffirms all my pre existing prejudices about things and the information is delivered in an entertaining way!  Short, punchy comedy where nobody else gets to express opposing views is definitely the best way to get informed!

HA HA HA!!

Sometimes I get annoyed because they have cherry picked the data and are deliberately advancing a point of view I know to be either false or at least not as settled as they make it sound. Other times I think they're terrific and are subverting a cultural lie that desperately needs to be taken down.

I'm still annoyed about the hunting-helps-save-animals story they told. It is true in some cases that subsistence hunting advocates work to preserve habitat. But when they talk about conservation efforts "abroad", they conveniently ignored that non-hunting tourism actually helps local economies AND local wildlife populations FAR more than trophy hunting. But the show fancies contrarian posturing more than actual investigation and will stop researching as soon as they come up with an angle they can sell as shocking.

Sometimes they're right, and what they say is useful, but the laziness of this approach always calls everything they say into question for me, because I know that they won't tell us if there's more to the story than the one shocking angle they tout.

Another stupid omission is in the weight loss narrative. I actually agree with most of what they said. But they threw up their hands and stopped asking questions too soon, concluding that it's genetics that determines weight, when there is research showing that it's more complicated than that. It's great they are undermining the calories in/calories out equation. But there are multiple factors besides genetics vs calories. Metabolism is influenced not only by the number of calories consumed and burned, and what your genes are, but also by what kind of calories, what kind of exercise, hormonal and organ function, and all kinds of things besides all that and genes. For example, new research is showing that you can actually turn some genes on and off or change how they express, using environmental triggers. And speaking as someone who lost 50 lbs WITHOUT dieting OR exercise, just by getting my insulin levels down, I know for sure that the body is more complex and interesting than anything the show begins to tap into.

But: it's a half hour show, not an advanced course in medicine. I just wish they'd be more transparent about how they only scratch the surface, and less smug about how they are a wrecking ball with a dash of data rather than an actual educational program aimed at informing people beyond the general idea that things aren't always what they seem. I definitely think it's good to get people to question things that have been taken for granted as true, and to relax about some of the crazier ideas they take to task. I just get frustrated whenever I actually know more about a topic and they act like they've settled it, when they really really haven't.

[Thrifty]

4 hours ago, possibilities said:

But: it's a half hour show, not an advanced course in medicine. I just wish they'd be more transparent about how they only scratch the surface, and less smug about how they are a wrecking ball with a dash of data rather than an actual educational program aimed at informing people beyond the general idea that things aren't always what they seem. I definitely think it's good to get people to question things that have been taken for granted as true, and to relax about some of the crazier ideas they take to task. I just get frustrated whenever I actually know more about a topic and they act like they've settled it, when they really really haven't.

I think it's a bad idea to use dishonesty and/or lazy research to try and get people talking, or get people interested in issues or whatever.  Because people are usually too lazy to research things in depth, and misinformation just spreads.

 

I especially hate it when comedy shows do this.  I call it "Jon Stewarting".  Someone makes uninformed, one-sided arguments that greatly appeal to the people already inclined to believe them, but if called out on their inaccuracies shrink back and say "oh I'm just a comedian.  I don't have to do rigorous fact checking."

[ketose]

On 8/1/2017 at 7:47 PM, Thrifty said:

I think it's a bad idea to use dishonesty and/or lazy research to try and get people talking, or get people interested in issues or whatever.  Because people are usually too lazy to research things in depth, and misinformation just spreads.

 

I especially hate it when comedy shows do this.  I call it "Jon Stewarting".  Someone makes uninformed, one-sided arguments that greatly appeal to the people already inclined to believe them, but if called out on their inaccuracies shrink back and say "oh I'm just a comedian.  I don't have to do rigorous fact checking."

Probably why it's Adam Ruins Everything and not Adam Informs and Elucidates.

[Thrifty]

1 hour ago, ketose said:

Probably why it's Adam Ruins Everything and not Adam Informs and Elucidates.

And there it is. 

 

What he says is taken on faith as proven fact, but if disputed, you hide behind its ostensible status as a comedy show.

[Skyfall]

On 7/14/2017 at 11:42 AM, StatisticalOutlier said:

I hadn't noticed the different tone, and you're right.  I did notice that they showed part of a one-on-one he had with one of the experts, which I hadn't seen him do before.  But as you noted, he stepped right into a mine field on this one and needed to tread carefully.  That episode must have taken a lot of work.  But like you, I enjoy the snark and hope this was just a situational thing.

And debunking myths is important!  I was just talking to a friend in Denver (not some backwater) who is intelligent and well educated.  She had her first baby at 36, and when I asked if she was going to have another, she said she was open to it but it needed to happen pretty quick because her doctor told her women can't get pregnant using their own eggs after they're 42.  I immediately thought "42" seemed awfully specific for something like that (that's the "Adam" in me), and told her that I know of two different women who had unexpected unplanned pregnancies much later than that--one at 49 and one at 50.  I don't know what happened with the pregnant-at-49 one (she was a friend of a friend), but the 50 year old had a healthy baby.  I suspect both had been told something similar to what my Denver friend was told by her doctor, with problematic results.

The one on one parts are likely included due to TruTV cutting out ad time to show more of their shows. I actually enjoy them to be honest.

[StatisticalOutlier]

44 minutes ago, Skyfall said:

The one on one parts are likely included due to TruTV cutting out ad time to show more of their shows. I actually enjoy them to be honest.

I do, too.  I was actually referring more to the different tone of the show about having babies, and noted the one-on-one as another difference I detected.  I'm glad he's doing them.

I wish more people watched Adam Ruins Everything if for no other reason than to tip them off that what they've been told forever might not actually be the truth, and maybe they should look into it and come to their own conclusion.  Last season there was some episode where he said something and I thought, "Oh, it's nowhere near as clear as you're claiming," but the important part is, "I thought."

[TheGreenWave]

^^^^^^^Thank you for the reasonable discussion here on what really the purpose of this show is - although you all don't know me, you've talked me down of the ledge since I was about to go nuts over his episode on Drugs!  HA!  I caught it this weekend, so it must have been a repeat.  Anyway, I came here to see if anyone had any thoughts on that episode.  I am far from a prude on this issue (I do think the sentencing for non-violent offenders is a huge problem and has been for a very long time), but this episode bothered me.  I felt like it needed more time to explain what should be done in terms of drug education (since he basically slammed DARE as stupid and worthless) but all I got was a testimonial about some safe haven for drug users in Canada.  That still didn't help on what do you say to your kids if "Just Say No" is garbage (didn't Emily ask this exact question?).  How is it that we see a drop in teens smoking, but an increase in drug use?  Is it because one is legal and regulated, and the other is not?  I would have liked to see that explored a bit.

[ketose]

Maybe I never expected too much from this show except interesting trivia. Obviously, the weakest part of the show is the conclusion which tries to paint a happy ending. I have to give them credit for citing sources, even if some sources are dubious, because the viewer can theoretically make up their mind based on research.

[PatternRec]

@StatisticalOutlier @TheGreenWave @ketose I love your comments and agree totally. The point of the show is to realize a lot of what we believe comes from unexpected sources, like the "tradition" of a wedding ring costing two months' salary being from an ad campaign. Like was said above, "I thought." For me the overall result of watching the show is more about doubting things that are presented as universal truths. Next time a fact is presented to me I'm more likely to ask why it's something people believe. 

[Twilight Man]

And now, Adam ruins school lessons

Most of us already knew most of the Columbus stuff we learned was fraudulent.

I'm surprised that he didn't include Paul Revere as the 3rd part of his trip through history.

Just about everything that guy wrote in his poem about Revere was wrong.

But the third part is about grammar, and now I've learned that millennials are now calling the "Grammar Police" "Grammandoes".

I understand that every generation needs to create their own slang word (cool -> awesome -> sweet),

but why create words and/or phrases for things that already have suitable words and/or phrases.

I may have lost the battle with "hash tag", but I refuse to lose the war with this.  Give me "Grammar Police" or give me death!!

Edited August 16, 2017 by Twilight Man

[StatisticalOutlier]

17 hours ago, Twilight Man said:

And now, Adam ruins school lessons

Most of us already knew most of the Columbus stuff we learned was fraudulent.

I didn't, but I'm old.  In fact, I thought Columbus landed around North Carolina-ish until at some point when I was an adult.

 

Quote

I may have lost the battle with "hash tag", but I refuse to lose the war with this.  Give me "Grammar Police" or give me death!!

I'm going down with you. 

Periods at the end of text messages indicate anger?  Here I am thinking, "I'm going to be polite and indicate that one sentence has ended and another has begun."  What a moron.

[Neurochick]

On August 15, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Twilight Man said:

I may have lost the battle with "hash tag", but I refuse to lose the war with this.  Give me "Grammar Police" or give me death!!

I think the point of the "Grammar" portion of the show was this  Who decides what is and what isn't proper grammar?  

[docmatt]

Is this a finale? I don't see any more episodes upcoming and  it had a somewhat final ending?

[ketose]

Also, has Adam essentially fired Emily from the show because she doesn't need him anymore?

I liked the stuff about the Backfire Effect. One of the drawbacks of social media is that someone who is wavering in their belief can find other people to bolster their existing opinions with other information. You can see groupthink occur in real time these days.

[Skyfall]

11 hours ago, docmatt said:

Is this a finale? I don't see any more episodes upcoming and  it had a somewhat final ending?

Nope just a mid season break as they have aired and have 8 more to go in this season.

[DrScottie]

I really enjoyed it. It's good to see a show that points out flaws and misconceptions is wise enough to do the same for themselves. A show that is based on critique should also be willing to be on the receiving end of said criticism.  

I remember the thematic predecessor to this show, Penn & Teller's B.S. They even admitted they were biased and did get some facts wrong during the show. They were planning a show where they did what Emily did here to address some of the issues, but it was cancelled before they could. 

18 hours ago, ketose said:

I liked the stuff about the Backfire Effect. One of the drawbacks of social media is that someone who is wavering in their belief can find other people to bolster their existing opinions with other information. You can see groupthink occur in real time these days.

This is a very good point. It is crazy about how much material is readily accessible via the internet for whatever stance someone ascribes to. 

With respect to dealing with the Backfire Effect, I wonder if they will retool the show a bit to  try to incorporate some of those strategies to be a little more persuasive. 

I thought it would be relevant to share this: The Debunking Handbook. It's a short read and I found it insightful. 

[DrScottie]

Good for Adam. Melinda seems like a lovely lady. 

Hey, it's RuPaul! 

He ruined their vacation, but it's what he does. Hopefully, he'll be able to tone it back a little for her.

I've been to Vegas and have fallen into the same trap that Melinda did. I know they were using various tactics to deliberately keep me there and that the machines are rigged to a certain extent. I just never realized how many ways I was being compelled to stay. Nor was I aware of just how much information was kept on those player cards either, but I suspected it was far more than the current reward point totals they'll display. Of course, they show those to make you want to keep playing for the next level or reward. It's the near-miss that's always been the one that kept me there So close to that jackpot.  

As for Hawaii, I never heard the whole story there. It was sort of glossed over as something we acquired during the Spanish-American War along with the Philippines, Cuba, Guam, and Puerto Rico. There's not a lot said about that war either besides the Maine (and its suspicious sinking used to justify the war) and Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders. 

I've been to Mount Rushmore and really wasn't that impressed either. Heard about Borglum from our tour guide, but he left out a few of the details Adam touched upon. I never knew the real reason why Teddy was there either, but he's always been portrayed as a real badass and a war hero. 

Edited September 20, 2017 by DrScottie

[StatisticalOutlier]

What I thought was interesting was that he went from our stealing Indian lands to casinos, without mentioning any connection (although he was in Las Vegas--not Indian casinos).  I kind of hate gambling, and did even when you could anonymously put coins in the machine.  These players cards?  No way, no how.

I was bothered by Melinda's bra straps with a spaghetti-strap dress, which I think is never a good luck.  Plus, the bra she was wearing didn't look like it was doing a very good job--if you're going to show your bra straps, there's no reason to wear an ineffective one.

[PityFree]

I am confused.   Is Melinda Adam's real life girlfriend or is she just an actress?  In the show intro she said her full name with her last name -- which isn't something the character Emily does when she's going to be in charge of an episode -- so that made me think that she's a real person.

[mamadrama]

15 hours ago, PityFree said:

I am confused.   Is Melinda Adam's real life girlfriend or is she just an actress?  In the show intro she said her full name with her last name -- which isn't something the character Emily does when she's going to be in charge of an episode -- so that made me think that she's a real person.

 Adam's gf is Lisa Hanawalt. Melinda was on a really fun "reality" show about Joey from NKOTB.

[PityFree]

 I just watch the conspiracy theory episode and I have to say I loved Adam’s jacket, shirt, and tie combination in this episode. 

 The actual episode was pretty good, too.

[MelinaBallerina]

Conspiracy theories:  I would have loved to see him debunk the stupid Jade Helm one that was flooding my Facebook feed a while back. Tunnels from Walmarts to Mexico?  Hahahaha 

[hoosiermom]

Loved the Halloween episode. Especially the debunking of that TV woman psychic Teresa or however you spell her name.Too funny.

[Epeolatrix]

The father who put cyanide in his son's Pixy Stix was also charged with the attempted murder of four other children using the same method (his daughter, two neighbor kids, and some random kid on the street). It was pure luck that none of the other children had opened theirs.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Violet Impulse
corrected typo

[Neurochick]

I binged about six episodes last night.  I really loved the one about the suburbs.  I loved that Adam brought up redlining, because that is one of the reasons black Americans have not been able to transfer wealth to their children, the way many white Americans can.  So many pundits on TV will say black people don't have money because, "they listen to rap music/have children out of wedlock" whatever.  The reality is that black Americans were shut out of wealth.  My first boss and her husband owned a home in Bergen county, NJ that they bought in the early 1960's.  When they retired they sold the home and bought an apartment in Manhattan (in the mid 1980's).  Now, that apartment is probably worth millions; so her children and grandchildren will benefit from that.  

I also liked how he said that homes in areas where people can't walk to places can become prisons for them.  One of my best friends doesn't drive, and she told her husband that they could not live in a house in the middle of nowhere, that she had to be able to walk to a supermarket.  It took them a while until they found a town where she was able to do that.   She used to say to him, "if you can't drive, how will we be able to eat?"  

I don't think the people who created the suburbs really thought too much about the future.  

[Gothish520]

3 hours ago, Neurochick said:

I binged about six episodes last night.  I really loved the one about the suburbs.  I loved that Adam brought up redlining, because that is one of the reasons black Americans have not been able to transfer wealth to their children, the way many white Americans can.  So many pundits on TV will say black people don't have money because, "they listen to rap music/have children out of wedlock" whatever.  The reality is that black Americans were shut out of wealth.  My first boss and her husband owned a home in Bergen county, NJ that they bought in the early 1960's.  When they retired they sold the home and bought an apartment in Manhattan (in the mid 1980's).  Now, that apartment is probably worth millions; so her children and grandchildren will benefit from that.  

I also liked how he said that homes in areas where people can't walk to places can become prisons for them.  One of my best friends doesn't drive, and she told her husband that they could not live in a house in the middle of nowhere, that she had to be able to walk to a supermarket.  It took them a while until they found a town where she was able to do that.   She used to say to him, "if you can't drive, how will we be able to eat?"  

I don't think the people who created the suburbs really thought too much about the future.  

The info about redlining was appalling. I'd heard the term before but never really knew what it meant. The institutionalized racism and xenophobia that were the basis for so much of what transpired in the evolution of our country is really disturbing. 

[possibilities]

I liked the science episode, with the discussion of funding, priorities, and reproducibility, and also the questioning of the use of mice in labs.

[DrScottie]

On 11/5/2017 at 10:07 AM, possibilities said:

I liked the science episode, with the discussion of funding, priorities, and reproducibility, and also the questioning of the use of mice in labs.

Having spent a decade and a half in the academic research environment, I can attest to much of what that episode was saying. It's sad that much of the time is spent pursuing very good to come by grants instead of doing experiments. 

As for the future episode, I'm still not drinking milk that smells bad and I certainly don't drink milk straight out of a carton. That just introduces all sorts of bacteria into the system.  I have, however, purchased milk that was discounted because it was 2 days from the sell by date. I've never had a problem with it and I'd worry more about the days after I open it for the first time. For me, it's not an issue as I tend to go through a gallon in about three days by myself. 

Of course, we end with Adam eating his favorite dish, oatmeal and soy sauce. Too bad it didn't work out with Melinda. 

[possibilities]

I agree that freshness dates on food are flawed, but just because you pasteurize something doesn't mean it can't develop problems later. Food poisoning can happen to cooked food. You're not supposed to leave leftovers lying around endlessly, and that's why. There are plenty of airborne pathogens and other sources of contamination that can be introduced and grow later.

[Gothish520]

10 hours ago, possibilities said:

I agree that freshness dates on food are flawed, but just because you pasteurize something doesn't mean it can't develop problems later. Food poisoning can happen to cooked food. You're not supposed to leave leftovers lying around endlessly, and that's why. There are plenty of airborne pathogens and other sources of contamination that can be introduced and grow later.

Exactly. I just don't feel like taking chances when it comes to food. When in doubt, throw it out!

[StatisticalOutlier]

On 11/10/2017 at 7:37 PM, Gothish520 said:

Exactly. I just don't feel like taking chances when it comes to food. When in doubt, throw it out!

You'll obviously never get sick from something you throw away instead of eating, but the point is what prompts the doubt?

If it's a date on a can of green beans causing the doubt, then you should think before throwing it out because it's going to be edible, and probably maintain its taste, long past the "best by" date.  If it's milk, maybe smell it first?  I hate the taste of spoiled milk and smell it before drinking it if I've had it a while.

I have learned that yogurt and cottage cheese are fine a long time past their "expiration date."  Like months, if unopened.  I don't eat much cottage cheese, but I love those little individual portions that come in packs of four.  After a few months, it becomes a little more dry than when I first bought it, but the taste is fine and I've never gotten sick., and I kind of like the less-creamy texture.  But that's not how Breakstone wants to present its product, hence the date, but my experience is that nothing bad has happened to me from eating them well past their assigned date.

I understand why they date products, if for no other reason than to monitor the product on the shelves, but the dates bother me because I've worked at food pantries that won't use any products that are past their sell-by date.  Part of it was perception--they don't want the people who receive the food to think they're don't deserve food that hasn't expired.  And maybe the recipients don't understand "best by" dates any more than the general population.  But I'm sure part of it is CYA because they also don't want volunteers taking it either, and that's just a huge waste.

But I also work at a soup kitchen that doesn't have such strict rules--if you would eat it, then you can serve or cook with it.  I've eaten all sorts of expired products there that are just fine, and never had a bad experience with any of them.

So if Adam at least got people thinking about what exactly that "best by" date means, and they use that to make informed choices, then I'm thankful.

[Gothish520]

2 hours ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

You'll obviously never get sick from something you throw away instead of eating, but the point is what prompts the doubt?

If it's a date on a can of green beans causing the doubt, then you should think before throwing it out because it's going to be edible, and probably maintain its taste, long past the "best by" date.  If it's milk, maybe smell it first?  I hate the taste of spoiled milk and smell it before drinking it if I've had it a while.

I have learned that yogurt and cottage cheese are fine a long time past their "expiration date."  Like months, if unopened.  I don't eat much cottage cheese, but I love those little individual portions that come in packs of four.  After a few months, it becomes a little more dry than when I first bought it, but the taste is fine and I've never gotten sick., and I kind of like the less-creamy texture.  But that's not how Breakstone wants to present its product, hence the date, but my experience is that nothing bad has happened to me from eating them well past their assigned date.

I understand why they date products, if for no other reason than to monitor the product on the shelves, but the dates bother me because I've worked at food pantries that won't use any products that are past their sell-by date.  Part of it was perception--they don't want the people who receive the food to think they're don't deserve food that hasn't expired.  And maybe the recipients don't understand "best by" dates any more than the general population.  But I'm sure part of it is CYA because they also don't want volunteers taking it either, and that's just a huge waste.

But I also work at a soup kitchen that doesn't have such strict rules--if you would eat it, then you can serve or cook with it.  I've eaten all sorts of expired products there that are just fine, and never had a bad experience with any of them.

So if Adam at least got people thinking about what exactly that "best by" date means, and they use that to make informed choices, then I'm thankful.

As long as dairy doesn't appear spoiled, then it should be fine if used past its expiration. I will go a day or two, though they say it's good for a week or so past (likely longer). That's unopened - once opened, most packages say use within seven days, but I've gone as long as ten.

Most of the situations where the doubt comes in have to do with food that has been sitting out, even covered. The standard is two hours, but once it's been out on the counter or table for an hour to an hour and half, I won't touch it. It could still smell and taste fine, but it's been exposed to air and germs and possibly unsafe temperatures. Not interested!

[CoyoteBlue]

On 11/7/2017 at 11:59 PM, DrScottie said:

As for the future episode, I'm still not drinking milk that smells bad and I certainly don't drink milk straight out of a carton. That just introduces all sorts of bacteria into the system.  I have, however, purchased milk that was discounted because it was 2 days from the sell by date. I've never had a problem with it and I'd worry more about the days after I open it for the first time.

This is why as a single gal, unless I'm specifically buying for a big recipe, I buy my milk in pints (or Dean's "chugs"). If I only crack open two cups at a time, I can usually use it before it goes bad, and the rest of the milk I bought is still safely sealed.

[Gothish520]

On 11/13/2017 at 3:39 PM, CoyoteBlue said:

This is why as a single gal, unless I'm specifically buying for a big recipe, I buy my milk in pints (or Dean's "chugs"). If I only crack open two cups at a time, I can usually use it before it goes bad, and the rest of the milk I bought is still safely sealed.

I buy milk in pints as well. My husband doesn't use milk and it's just the two of us. It's more expensive initially but actually cheaper in the long run, since I'm not pouring unused milk past its prime down the drain.

[Twilight Man]

It looks like Adam is going to be "ruining" some more History myths.

First up, yet another look at the misinformed "Midnight Ride of Paul Revere".

Several shows, from "America: Facts vs. Fiction" to "Hysteria!!" have been trying

to teach us all the names of Dawes and Prescott.

Maybe someday someone will put their names in a song (let alone a poem).

[Skyfall]

So thoughts on the animated I guess kinda sorta spinoff?

[Gothish520]

On 3/21/2018 at 3:40 PM, Skyfall said:

So thoughts on the animated I guess kinda sorta spinoff?

It was ok. Nothing I haven't heard before. I prefer the live-action episodes, hoping they come back.

[Skyfall]

22 hours ago, Gothish520 said:

It was ok. Nothing I haven't heard before. I prefer the live-action episodes, hoping they come back.

Well we have 5 more animated episodes, not sure what the plans are after that.

[Gothish520]

On 3/23/2018 at 4:32 PM, Skyfall said:

Well we have 5 more animated episodes, not sure what the plans are after that.

Hmmm, the animated ones just seem lazy. I will keep watching though, for now.

[Skyfall]

14 hours ago, Gothish520 said:

Hmmm, the animated ones just seem lazy. I will keep watching though, for now.

Since they’re all related to history I think they feel it’s essier this way as opposed to actors in period costumes.

[Gothish520]

Damn, I'm just not feeling these animated episodes. 

[possibilities]

Yeah, I'm very resistant to the animation. I'm finding it horrible to look at. But I actually liking some of the topics. I especially like "same time, different place" feature.

[Notwisconsin]

Just binged the animated version and I don't like it one bit. Oh, the animation's fine, but debunking stories that were just made up by the show's writers, like the Copernicus segment, is just wrong. Also, the fall of the Berlin wall thing, while getting some details right, yeah, the bureaucrat misspoke, but, but there was no way the people of East Berlin would have heard the interview with the American journalist, it is just as wrong as the made-up story it debunks...and don't get me started on the mostly fictional history of the Middle East.... Very disappointing indeed.

Edited August 19, 2018 by Notwisconsin

[stillhere1900]

Adam Ruins Halloween:

Yep, totally remember my mother not letting us eat the candy until she checked it for razors/pins. We were never allowed to eat the fruit.  If the candy wrapper was slightly torn, she would toss it out.

[stillhere1900]

On 8/15/2017 at 9:24 PM, Twilight Man said:

 

Most of us already knew most of the Columbus stuff we learned was fraudulent.

 

Are schools still teaching that Columbus "discovered America" ?

[stillhere1900]

On 10/27/2017 at 1:04 PM, Violet Impulse said:

The father who put cyanide in his son's Pixy Stix was also charged with the attempted murder of four other children using the same method (his daughter, two neighbor kids, and some random kid on the street). It was pure luck that none of the other children had opened theirs.

Adam & that "Expert" guy kept saying that there wasn't any proof that strangers harmed/killed children by tampering with halloween candy.

That was really confusing,

[27bored]

Adam Ruins Guns. This episode had several intellectually dishonest moments:

1. I'm not a card-carrying member of the NRA, but it's a little pat to act like they just love guns so much and they're so big that no one can stop them...least of all the people in favor of "common sense gun control". The reason the NRA tends to balk at gun control, notionally, is because they believe regulators won't stop at any one measure. It's similar to smoking, They know what happens when you start compromising and they're not willing to do that.

2. And to be honest, that's the reason some voters don't support gun control. They think those who want it are BSing to make the most politically expedient point they can, when really they just don't want people to have guns.

3. To sort of reduce the debate down to it being all about black people and scared white people, I thought, was kind of silly. Gun control is about curbing gun violence, period. If black people are over-represented in the group who perpetuates gun violence, it is what it is, unless someone has competing data suggesting it's untrue or that laws are passed only to affect black people. But to me, that's just about identity politics and pandering. Whenever there's a mass shooting, it takes all of five minutes for people to start muttering about the NRA. The NRA got dragged into the conversation after the Parkland shooting for no reason, and companies started cutting ties with them. But that's because we associate the NRA with middle aged white men, and nobody cares about offending them. On the other hand, more mundane gun violence (i.e. in inner cities, among gangs, etc) usually don't get the conversation going for gun control, because a lot of liberals don't want to look like they're attacking black/brown people.

4. Bringing up Phillando Castile was kind of cheap, to be honest. As awful as his killing was, most people aren't suggesting that the cop was in the right. The city prosecuted the cop and even though he was acquitted, he was fired. Maybe the cop was a racist -- who knows -- but neither side of the gun control debate, to any great extent, was trying to defend the cop who killed Philando Castile.

[Neurochick]

The problem where race is concerned is that too many white people assume that black people are “dangerous “ and will react in a certain way.  Look at the recent conviction of a white man who shot at a black child who was asking for directions.  As for stand your ground, why did the black woman in Florida get prison time, yet the man who murdered Travon Martin walked free.  I can’t believe race had zero to do with either decision.

[hoosiermom]

I liked the episode on sleep but he didn’t give any help on how one should by a mattress.