Really interesting question! Basically, a specific region of the brain lights up when looking at human faces and we think that this area holds a "face map" that plots every face you've seen based on characteristics. Our eyes tend to linger on things we haven't seen before, so even if someone doesn't consciously recognise a face, their eye movements can indicate that they're familiar with that face. Lots of cutting edge face research is just coming out using fMRI and eye movement tracking.

Right, well the one in the tweet isn't a parody. And I never said they weren't atheists, but that they weren't "just atheists in disguise." Because belonging to the Church of Satan is obviously distinct from straight atheism. Sorry if that was too nuanced.

The Church of Satan follows the Satanic Bible, and doesn't believe in a literal Satan but rather Satanic ideals of enlightenment and opposition to an Abrahamic God. It's not a parody, and its members aren't just atheists in disguise - it's a legit religion that's been around since the 1960s.

Samoyed! Very floofy, very stubborn, 12/10.

So "top" and "bottom" are used in LGBTQ circles to characterise not who is on top/bottom spatially, but more of a personality of active/passive, giving/receiving, or dominant/submissive. It's usually more about each person's energy rather than any physical action they may be doing. These meanings originated in gay culture and are usually confined there, though they can be applied to all kinds of sex.

Discrimination? It's just a bookstore that focuses on books with LGBT themes and authors. That's like saying a sushi restaurant discriminates against pizza.

The person on the phone realised they may be gay and probably freaked out about the changes and hardships this may put on their life (work, family, friends, religion, etc.) They probably weren't thinking clearly, and thought that hurting/killing themselves would be easier than dealing with it all.

Ariel's treasure trove was full of human objects because THAT'S what she wanted more than anything. She'd been obsessing about humans for years before she ever encountered Eric; she loves him because he's the epitome of what it would mean to be human, the icing on the cake. When her dad invades her space and wrecks her shit, she's (justifiably) angry and makes a rash decision, as teenagers are wont to do. She leaves a kingdom of expectations and rules for one with more freedom and exploration - Eric barely factors into the equation.

Actually I think feminism wants to destroy the idea that men don't need emotional support and that all men have to think that little gestures of affection are stupid or girly.

So congrats on writing (and making me read) a 2,218 word response. I honestly don't know how to reply since it was less of a coherent argument and more of a loose bundle of facts, anecdotes, unrelated assertions, and deeper philosophy. I agree with a lot that you said, and also disagree with a lot. All I can say is that it's clear we don't agree on the nature of human behavior or the best way to help minimum wage workers.

I have research assistants who work under me. They aren't required to have any qualifications and they don't make much money. If I gave them minimal instructions for their jobs and threatened to fire them for being 5 minutes late, they'd do the bare minimum to not be fired. But a heartfelt thank you and some understanding when they're late or sick makes them happy to come in and they work hard to help me. You can't run every business exactly like that, but it HAS to be a two-way street for companies. Nobody has a passion for fast food - it's not their dream career. If you treat people like they're worthless and lazy, they'll start to act that way. If we treat it like it's a dead-end job, so will the workers. Work isn't (and shouldn't be) the most important thing in these peoples' lives and companies have to stop acting like people are able to give 110% every day.

But nothing about the job encourages someone to do more than the bare minimum to "prove" themselves. These jobs tend to provide little pay and few opportunities to advance and earn more. So why would someone spend their maximum effort if there's no way for it to pay off, even in the form of encouraging words from a supervisor. I think that if there were higher wages and more respect given to these positions, even the "worthless fuck ups" would increase their output.

It's been shown that people work harder when they're shown encouragement and assistance instead of strict rules. Why are we punishing people for taking entry level jobs? What's the motivation to act professional if they are treated like animals, not professionals? Why should they have to earn respect when they're already doing a job that's harder than it looks and I wouldn't want to do?

@guest_ It sounds like you want to see "professionalism" to know if they deserve a wage increase, but how can you expect people to respect their jobs when the jobs don't treat them with respect? It can't just be a wage increase, the entire attitude towards these workers must change. Managers and higher-ups must treat them with dignity, give them enough hours so they don't have to work a second job, and stop acting as though every worker below such-and-such level is replaceable. For people to act professional they need to be treated as such.

I have a Samoyed too! Terrible guard dog (he's blind) but a great floof!

After doing the 30 seconds of googling that you apparently won't, I cannot find any mention of these rooms being messed up. The owner of the Amber Inn was nothing but supportive of the efforts to house people and even lowered the rates so more rooms could be used. Not to mention, there were hundreds of donations to both the organisers and the hotel - enough to cover any damages.