The reason for this is the fact that many topics that were considered taboo are no longer thought of as such today. Shocking? Yes. Wrong? Sometimes, but no longer taboo. Humanities interest in the worst of themselves has overrode the former thinking that we should get evil and unjust things out of our minds.
No. You should be over 18 to watch R rated movies.
Answer: Demography is the study of human populations, including size, structure, distribution over space, socioeconomic characteristics, households and families, migration, labor force, and vital processes (birth, death, formation and dissolution of marital, and other unions).
Explanation:
Several factors have contributed to the shrinking size of the American middle class after the early 1970s. One of them includes "the emergence of the low-wage service sector."
Other factors that contributed to the shrinking size of the American middle class during this period include:
Greater demand for higher-skill jobs;
The huge income gap between the high paid executives and employees in the middle ranks;
Fewer opportunities for those with little education.
Global competition and advancement in technology;
Surging education fees, health care, and housing cost;
Hence, in this case, it is concluded that the middle class in the United States is smaller today compared to the time before 1970.
Learn more here: brainly.com/question/23755166
<h2>
<em><u>Question</u></em><em><u>_</u></em><em><u>1</u></em><em><u>. </u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>The most fundamental principle of justice—one that has been widely accepted since it was first defined by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago—is the principle that "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally." In its contemporary form, this principle is sometimes expressed as follows: "Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved." For example, if Jack and Jill both do the same work, and there are no relevant differences between them or the work they are doing, then in justice they should be paid the same wages. And if Jack is paid more than Jill simply because he is a man, or because he is white, then we have an injustice—a form of discrimination—because race and sex are not relevant to normal work situations.</u></em></h2>
<h2>
<em><u>Question</u></em><em><u>-</u></em><em><u>2</u></em><em><u>. </u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>Social</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>privilege</u></em></h2>
<em><u> </u></em><em><u> </u></em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em> </em><em>Social privilege is a theory of special advantage or entitlement, used to one's own benefit or to the detriment of others. These groups can be advantaged based on social class, age, height, nationality, disability, ethnic or racial category, gender, gender identity, neurology, sexual orientation, and religion.It is generally considered to be a theoretical concept used in a variety of subjects and often linked to social inequality.Privilege is also linked to social and cultural forms of power.It began as an academic concept, but has since been invoked more widely, outside of academia.</em>
<h2>
<em><u>Question-3</u></em><em><u>. </u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>Racism has been—and unfortunately still is—such a prominent feature of so many human societies that it might be tempting to think of it as somehow "natural" or "innate."</u></em></h2><h2 /><h2>
<em><u>Racism has been—and unfortunately still is—such a prominent feature of so many human societies that it might be tempting to think of it as somehow "natural" or "innate."Indeed, this is the conclusion that some evolutionary psychologists have come to. Evolutionary psychology tries to account for present-day human traits in terms of the survival benefit they might have had to our ancestors. If a trait has survived and become prevalent, then the genes associated with it must have been "selected" by evolution.</u></em></h2>
<h2>
<em><u>Question</u></em><em><u>_</u></em><em><u>4</u></em><em><u>. </u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>The Veil of Ignorance, a component of social contract theory, allows us to test ideas for fairness.</u></em></h2>
<em><u>Like many thought experiments, the Veil of Ignorance could never be carried out in the literal sense, nor should it be. Its purpose is to explore ideas about justice, morality, equality, and social status in a structured manner.</u></em>
<h2>
<em><u>Question</u></em><em><u>-</u></em><em><u>5</u></em><em><u>. </u></em><em><u>Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, protects employees and job applicants from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.</u></em></h2>
<h2>
<em><u>Question</u></em><em><u>-</u></em><em><u>6</u></em><em><u>. </u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>They’re surrounded by pieces of the puzzle, but can’t put them together</u></em></h2>
<h2>
<em><u>Question</u></em><em><u>-</u></em><em><u>7</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>The just-world hypothesis or just-world fallacy is the cognitive bias that assumes that "people get what they deserve" - that actions will have morally fair and fitting consequences for the actor. For example, the assumptions that noble actions will eventually be rewarded and evil actions will eventually be punished fall under this hypothesis. In other words, the just-world hypothesis is the tendency to attribute consequences to—or expect consequences as the result of— either a universal force that restores moral balance or a universal connection between the nature of actions and their results. This belief generally implies the existence of cosmic justice, destiny, divine providence, desert, stability, and/or order. It is often associated with a variety of fundamental fallacies, especially in regard to rationalizing suffering on the grounds that the sufferers "deserve" it.</u></em></h2>
<h2>
<em><u>Question</u></em><em><u>-</u></em><em><u>8</u></em><em><u>. </u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>In game theory terminology, interpersonal trust is associated with the 'type' of the other players (or his own disposition to believe other players), while the institutional trust is related to the rules of the game.</u></em></h2>
<h2>
<em>Hop</em><em>e</em><em> </em><em>this</em><em> helps</em><em> you</em><em> ❤️</em></h2>
<h2>
<em>Mark</em><em> me</em><em> as</em><em> brainliest</em><em> ❤️</em></h2>
