upworthy
Badge
Ancestry
Ancestry
More

3 years after the marriage equality ruling, a look back at 8 anti-equality predictions.

In the run up to the Supreme Court's landmark marriage equality ruling in 2015, some opponents of marriage equality voiced big concerns.

These concerns, they'd be the first to tell you, weren't rooted in hatred or bigotry. Of course not. Opponents were simply worried about what marriage equality could lead to in the future. If this were allowed, what would come next? Now that it's been 1,096 days (but who's counting, really?) since the court ruled, we're checking in on some of the doubters to see how many of their predictions came true.

Here are eight anti-equality arguments, fact-checked.

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images.

1. "Marriage equality will lead to legal bestiality."

This was a really common argument made by anti-equality pundits, politicians, and religious leaders leading up to and after the Supreme Court's decision.

"Watch what happens," warned Pat Robertson during a July 2015 episode of "The 700 Club." "Love affairs between men and animals are going to be absolutely permitted."

Appearing on "The Glenn Beck Show," Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) mused over a similar question. "If we have no laws on this, people take it to one extension further — does it have to be humans? You know?" Oh, we know, senator.

Verdict: FALSE.

2. "Marriage equality will lead to legal polygamy."

Another common argument against the court's ruling was the fear that it would result in people having five or six spouses and eroding the institution beyond recognition.

In 2006, Charles Krauthammer argued that because gay people believe the definition of marriage being one man and one woman is discriminatory, that it'd only be fair to consider "the number restriction ... similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible."

Just months after the Supreme Court's ruling, Ben Carson, a major opponent of marriage equality, said that now that the court has ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, polygamy was "the natural next question."

Spoiler: It's not.

Verdict: FALSE.

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

3. "Marriage equality will lead to child marriages."

The talking point has its roots in anti-gay fear-mongering centered on the idea that gay men will try to "recruit" children or that they have a predisposition towards pedophilia. Obviously, none of that is true; it's just a way to scare people into seeing LGBTQ people as sexual deviants.

CNN unearthed a video of Sam Clovis, President Trump's former nominee for the role of chief scientist (despite no actual history working in science) at the USDA, offering what he believes are "logical" things to worry about if and when same-sex marriage were to become legal: "If we protect LGBT behavior, what other behaviors are we going to protect? Are we going to protect pedophilia? We're not thinking the consequences of these decisions through."

Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage posed similar concerns, just as unfounded. "Will pedophiles become 'minor-attracted persons' in our culture?" he asked in a 2011 blog post. "Will courts which endorse orientation as a protected class decide down the road that therefore laws which discriminate against 'minor-attracted persons' must be narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest?"

Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh claimed in 2013 that the push for marriage equality was part of the LGBTQ community's secret plot to make pedophilia OK. "They want us to all think that pedophilia is just another sexual orientation," he said, baselessly. "You know who's gonna fall right in line is college kids, just like they have on gay marriage, just like they do on all other revolutionary social issues."

While no, there hasn't been some LGBTQ community push for the legalization of pedophilia, it is worth nothing that in dozens of U.S. states itis legal for someone under the age of 18 to marry an adult — and has been for a long time. Opponents of measures to raise the minimum marriage age are not members of the LGBTQ community, but often, social conservatives.

Verdict: FALSE.

4. "Marriage equality will lead to the outright criminalization of Christianity."

"Christian convictions are under attack as never before," former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said in 2015. "Not just in our lifetime, but ever before in the history of this great republic. We are moving rapidly toward the criminalization of Christianity."

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) lamented the fact that people might judge others who think gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married.

"We've reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage you are labeled a homophobe and a hater," he said in a 2015 interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network. "So what's the next step after that? After they are done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church is hate speech, and there's a real and present danger."

Both men will be relieved to find out that no one has been jailed for believing in the Christian God or for praying the rosary.

Verdict: FALSE.

[rebelmouse-image 19397674 dam="1" original_size="750x500" caption="Anti-equality protestors have not been thrown in jail for their religious beliefs, for reading the Bible, or for calling gay people "an abomination." All of that remains perfectly legal. Photo by Ty Wright/Getty Images." expand=1]Anti-equality protestors have not been thrown in jail for their religious beliefs, for reading the Bible, or for calling gay people "an abomination." All of that remains perfectly legal. Photo by Ty Wright/Getty Images.

5. "Marriage equality will lead to more abortion."

This was a bizarre notion put out into the world by Gene Schaerr at the Heritage Foundation's Daily Signal blog. Presumably meant to target people who don't see the harm in marriage equality but oppose abortion, Schaerr cobbled together a few stats and made some ... shall we say ... creative connections.

Schaerr argued in 2015 that some would see marriage equality as devaluing heterosexual marriages and some straight couples would opt against getting married at all. "A reduction in the opposite-sex marriage rate means an increase in the percentage of women who are unmarried and who, according to all available data, have much higher abortion rates than married women," he wrote. "And based on past experience, institutionalizing same-sex marriage poses an enormous risk of reduced opposite-sex marriage rates."

His conclusion: an additional 900,000 abortions over a 30-year span. As a number of news outlets pointed out at the time, this number seems to have been pulled from thin air.

The truth is that abortion rates have been decreasing over the past several decades, largely as the result of comprehensive sex education programs and increased access to contraception. If anything will spike the number of abortions, it's likely to be proposals to embrace so-called abstinence-only education and attempts to repeal the health care law.

Verdict: FALSE.

6. "Marriage equality will lead to mass killings."

This is another head-scratcher from Ben Carson. During a 2016 speech, Carson warned that marriage equality would lead to "mass killings," adding that defining marriage as being between one man and one woman is all that "stands between peace and utter chaos."

For Carson, this seems to come down to a belief that without the Bible, there'd be no incentive not to murder every person you come in contact with. What starts with marriage turns into genocide, apparently.

"Why must they change [marriage]? I believe the reason is, if you can change the word of God in one area, then you can change it in every area," he said. "It's the camel's nose under the tent, and it will just be an avalanche of one thing after the other. We won't have anything that we can use as our reference point because we will have thrown out God's word. It'll be every man for himself, every man deciding for himself what is right and what is wrong, and that can't possibly lead to a good place."

Verdict: FALSE.

7. "Marriage equality will lead to the downfall of democracy."

This example comes from former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges itself. In it, he lamented the fact that rather than putting the question of whether non-heterosexual people should be allowed to marry up to a public vote, the Supreme Court was stepping into a situation in which it had no business. "I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy," he wrote.

He later added that "this practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."

There's a bit of irony in Scalia having argued that it's the marriage ruling that would undercut democracy when just two years earlier he joined a 5-4 majority in striking down a crucial section of the Voting Rights Act. As a result, countless voters have become disenfranchised, effectively blocked out of the democratic process altogether.

Verdict: FALSE.

On the night of June 26, 2015, the White House was lit up in rainbow-colored lights to mark the historic occasion. Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images.

8. "Marriage equality will lead to the downfall of society."

By the mid-2000s, it had started to become clear that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) might not be as constitutionally sound as opponents of marriage equality would've liked. It was around then that they began trying to pass a bill called the "Marriage Protection Act," which would have amended the judiciary code to essentially say that federal courts weren't allowed to rule on DOMA at all.

In 2006, then-Rep. Mike Pence (R-Indiana) laid out his argument in favor of the bill, warning of the dire consequences that could come with marriage equality.

"I believe that if someone chooses another lifestyle than I have chosen, that that is their right in a free society," he said, paying lip service to LGBTQ people's right to exist. "But tolerance does not require that we permit our courts to redefine an institution upon which our society depends. Marriage matters, according to the researchers. Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that throughout history, societal collapse was always brought about following an advent of the deterioration of marriage and family."

The sociologist Pence mentioned, Pitirim Sorokin, published the opinion being referenced in his 1937 book, "Social and Cultural Dynamics." It was controversial, to say the least. Citing Sorokin — and later saying "marriage should be protected because it wasn't our idea," pointing to the institution's supposed creation by a higher power — was a clever way for Pence to argue that his views that some people should have more rights than others was based in concern for society as opposed to bigotry.

Pence will certainly be happy to learn that society still exists, and if there is some larger threat to it, the origin likely has its roots in the current occupant of the Oval Office, not a happily married lesbian couple.

Verdict: FALSE.

Conclusion: Turns out that all the stuff equality advocates said was fear-mongering was, well, fear-mongering.

I could be wrong, but it doesn't appear that any of the people who offered up these concerns about the marriage equality ruling have walked back these statements. I mean, if you're going to put an entire group on the hook for the downfall of civilization or the coming wave of fashionable bestiality, it'd be nice if you could pop in to say "my bad" when it doesn't happen.

For those of you wondering what's next, stop by our marriage equality #UpChat on Twitter on Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 1p.m. ET.

Democracy

Here’s a paycheck for a McDonald’s employee. And here's my jaw hitting the ground.

The federal minimum wage is still less than this.

via JustFrugalMe/YouTube

How can anyone get by on this?

I've written extensively about minimum wage, supported by fact-checkers, economists, and scholarly studies. All of them support raising the minimum wage as a solution to lifting people out of poverty and getting them off public assistance. It's slowly happening, and there's much more to be done.

But when it comes right down to it, where the rubber meets the road is what it means for everyday workers who have to live with those wages. I honestly don't know how they do it. Ask yourself: Could I live on this small of an hourly wage? I know what my answer is.

(And note that the minimum wage in many parts of the county is STILL $7.25, so it could be even less than this).

paychecks, McDonalds, corporate power, broken systemOne year of work at McDonalds grossed this worker $13,811.18.via JustFrugalMe/YouTube

The YouTube channel Just Frugal Me discussed the viral paycheck and noted there's absolutely nothing wrong with working at McDonald's. More than 2 million people in the U.S. alone work for the fast food giant. The worker's paycheck shows they put in 72 hours over the pay period, making $8.75 per hour. Before taxes, that's $631 for the week. Just Frugal Me's breakdown is even more eye-opening, breaking down this person's pay after taxes and weighing across average rent and utility costs. Spoiler Alert: the total costs for basic necessities far outweigh what this person is making even while working 12 hours per day. But they do make too much to qualify for Medicaid, meaning they will have to go out and buy their own health insurance.

mcdonald's, minimum wage, restaurants, fast food, burgers, big macA photo of a McDonald's in Hartford, CT. via Mike Mozart/Flickr

Even in states like California, where the state's $20 minimum wage ensures that people earn nearly three times as much as the federal minimum wage, which remains as low as when this paycheck first made the rounds nearly 10 years ago.

Still, even for a worker that maxed out at 40 hours per week and took zero vacation or sick time, that's only a little over $41,000 per year. That's barely half the median wage in the state of $78,000 and far below a sustainable living wage in cities like Los Angeles.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

The U.S. federal minimum wage is just $7.25 and hasn't been raised since 2009. In April 2025, the Raise the Wage Act of 2025 was introduced in the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. The bill would increase the federal minimum wage to $17 an hour by 2030 and eliminate the subminimum wage for tipped workers and those with disabilities. But supporters should be cautious that it's unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled Congress.

If the Wage Act of 2025 were to pass, over $22 million workers would get a raise, which is 15% of the U.S. workforce. It would raise $70 billion for low-wage Americans, an increase of $3,200 per worker.

“No person working full-time in America should be living in poverty," Virginia Congressman Bobby Scott said in a statement. "The Raise the Wage Act will increase the pay and standard of living for nearly 22 million workers across this country. Raising the minimum wage is good for workers, good for business, and good for the economy. When we put money in the pockets of American workers, they will spend that money in their communities,”

This story originally appeared ten years ago. It has been updated to reflect new information.

From Your Site Articles
minimum wage
Mental Health

Doctors swear that swearing is good for you: how a potty mouth can make you healthier

The physical, psychological, and social health benefits of obscenities.

Photo credit: Canva

Cursing can actually have physical, mental, and social benefits.

In George Carlin’s now-infamous “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television” bit from the stand-up comedian’s 1972 album, Class Clown, he lists seven profane words that were, at the time, banned from both American TV and radio. There’s no need to repeat them all here (please watch the YouTube video though; there’s a reason it’s a classic), but his point is, essentially, that words have no intrinsic value until we give them power. None of the seven words are innately wrong or bad, it’s nothing but a bunch of noises—yet the nature of censorship and society deems them inappropriate. He spends a little extra time on the infamous "F word," noting it's a "great word," a "nice word," even a "cute word, kind of."

Then, he sums it pretty concisely: "[It's an] easy word to say... Starts with a nice soft sound fuh ends with a kuh. Right? A little something for everyone.”

George Carlin performing "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television."www.youtube.com

It does roll off the tongue, doesn’t it? And its perfectly tailored for when a finger gets slammed by a closing door, the moment your phone drops, face-down, on the pavement without a screen protector, and when walking out of a movie to find your car has been towed.

But we’re not supposed to utter those words. There are stories of teachers who would wash your mouth out with soap. Swear jars exist in more American office buildings than you'd think. For our entire lives, profanity has been branded as unprofessional, uncouth, and juvenile. However, science is now proving that a good ol' expletive might be good for you. Researchers are currently swearing by swearing, claiming that cuss words hold cathartic value as well as other physiological and social powers.

The psychological benefits are f*cking real

In June 2020, Dr. Richard Stephens and PhD researcher Olly Robertson published a study in Frontiers in Psychology that proved the connection between pain tolerance and swearing. The findings were astonishing. When participants swore during painful experiences—like submerging their hands in ice-cold water—their pain tolerance shot up 33% and they were able to tolerate the discomfort twice as long as those who didn’t swear or screamed out made-up words.


swearing, chastising, obscenities, pain tolerance, science Sometimes, "bad" language can actually be good. media2.giphy.com

Conventional swear words, like Carlin’s favorite four-letter one, work best when it comes to increased pain tolerance. This is called “analgesia,” which means the body reduces or completely erases the sensation of pain while conscious. If you’ve seen the film Novocaine, or even just the trailer, then you get the idea. However, interestingly, scientists aren’t in total agreement on why this phenomenon happens. The working theory? Swearing in distressful situations may activate the amygdala, triggering a fight-or-flight response that surges the body with adrenaline, a natural pain reliever.

“Swearing is such a common response to pain that there has to be an underlying reason why we do it,” says psychologist Richard Stephens of Keele University in England, who led the study, before adding, “I would advise people, if they hurt themselves, to swear.”

Holy sh*t, swearing makes you stronger

Studies also show that swearing can improve physical performance, especially during short, intense tasks. Scientists found that swearing can increase your performance in the gym, specifically in areas including grip strength, endurance exercises, push-ups, and even cycling. Why? Like Will Ferrell says in the movie Blades of Glory, “it gets the people going.”

So, the next time you’re struggling through that last rep at the gym, channel your inner Jerry West, and let the expletives fly.


Jerry "the Logo" West, doing what he does best: crashing out and cursing. www.youtube.com

Obscenities, the emotional superpower you never knew you had

Swearing works like an emotional valve, a spigot that can be turned on and unleashed whenever you feel overwhelmed, frustrated, hurt, or angry, and allows the strong emotions to pass through you quicker and easier. “Swearing allows us to vent and cope with emotions such as anger and frustration,” says Timothy Jay, psychology professor emeritus at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts and author of Why We Curse (2008) and Cursing in America(2012).

Even road rage can be a good thing: in a 2018 study called “Get the f#∗k out of my way!” Exploring the cathartic effect of swear words in coping with driving anger,” scientists found that simply swearing while a pedestrian crosses the road illegally had a cathartic effect. They write, “These findings suggested that swearing is not only an expression of verbal aggression towards another road user, but occasionally a way to cope with anger, which leads to better outcomes for the driver such as more positive affect and lower physical activation.”

man yelling, swearing, cursing, obscenties, health benefitsRoad rage can help release pent-up emotions, especially when they're valid. Photo credit: Canva


Swearing, the vulgar social glue holding it all together

Swearing, in the right context, can strengthen social ties. Something as simple as an expletive can convey a level of relatability, signaling that you’re not prudish.

According to Ben Bergen, a professor of cognitive science at the University of California, San Diego, and author of the 2016 book What the F: What Swearing Reveals About Language, Our Brains, and Ourselves:

“Some people believe that profanity can break social taboos in a generally non-harmful way, [which] can create an informal environment in which people feel like insiders together. Similarly, swearing can lead others to believe that the person speaking is honest because they’re saying what they really believe.” - Ben Bergen

In the cleverly titled 2017 study, "Frankly, We Do Give a Damn: The Relationship Between Profanity and Honesty," researchers found that profanity can be positively associated with honesty because of its associations with expressing unfiltered feelings and sincerity. Obviously, there’s a time and place for everything, so it's probably best to hold your tongue in formal settings, like a parent-teacher conference or meeting your partner's parents for the first time.

man, swearing, obscenities, health benefits, scienceSwearing is not morally wrong! Just take it from Bryan Cranston. media0.giphy.com

But, despite what we may have been told growing up, swearing is not morally wrong. So, the next time you drop your phone, face-down, and it does happen to be cracked, do the natural thing. Swear. Cuss. Curse the powers that may be. You might be doing yourself a favor.


From Your Site Articles
science
Art

In 125 years, millions of people have looked at this painting. No one really saw it until recently.

Van Gogh saw something it took scientists another 100 years to see.

Image from Wikimedia Commons.

Van Gogh's Starry Night, 1889.

Vincent van Gogh never got to enjoy his own historic success as an artist (even though we've been able to imagine what that moment might have looked like). Van Gogh died in 1890 at the age of 37 in Auvers-sur-Oise, France after shooting himself in the chest with a revolver. It was a tragic end to a turbulent life marked by mental instability and severe self-doubt.

According to the Van Gogh Museum, in a letter to his brother Theo in 1890, just a couple of weeks before his death, Van Gogh wrote, "...my life, is attacked at the very root, my step also is faltering." The man was struggling and exhausted. The high standards he had set for himself and his art were taking a toll. He was unsure about his future and, up to this point, had not received much recognition for his work and thought himself a failure "as a man and as an artist."

His most well-known work, Starry Night, was famously painted while Van Gogh was staying in an asylum in France 1889 after he mutilated his ear during a psychotic episode. According to the Van Gogh Museum, though, this may not be the full story. While it is widely agreed that Van Gogh did in fact cut off his own ear, the museum notes that it was because of a fight between Van Gogh and Paul Gaugin, the artist he had been working for in Aries, that led to the violent explosion that highlighted his deteriorating mental state.

Vincent Van Gogh, artist, 19th century, famous artist, Starry NightVincent Van Gogh's Self-Portrait, 1889Image via Canva.

As one of the best known and most studied artists of the 19th century, Van Gogh's madness and how it influenced his work is not new information. But it turns out that those of us who have appreciated his work have been missing out on some critical details for more than 100 years—revealed in the 2010s thanks to the Hubble Space Telescope.

A video at the bottom of the page will explain everything, but before we get there, let's do some backstory:

We known Van Gogh was an artist—and a genius artist at that—but, it turns out, he was also scientist. Kind of.

Whether intentionally or not, fresh eyes have found that Van Gogh's art—aside from being breathtaking—also captures one of science and nature's most elusive concepts: Turbulence.

The concept of turbulence is hard to understand with math, but it turns out art makes it fairly easy to comprehend through depiction. So, what is turbulence?

According to Britannica, turbulence, or turbulent flow, is a concept of fluid dynamics in which a type of fluid flow (liquid or gas like air or water or air) undergoes an irregular fluctuation or energy cascade. In other words, the air or water swirls and eddies as it moves: big eddies make smaller eddies, and those make even smaller ones, and so on. Common examples of turbulent flow include blood flow in arteries, lava flow, atmosphere and ocean currents, and the flow in boat wakes or surrounding the tips of aircraft wings.

It looks like this:

figures, flow, turbulence, turbulent flow, science, movementTurbulent flow illustrated and animated.All Van Gogh GIFs via TED-Ed.

The thing is, scientists only started figuring this out pretty recently.

turbulence, turbulent flow, science, nature, researchAnimation of art referencing science.All Van Gogh GIFs via TED-Ed.

And yet, there was Mr. Vincent van Gogh, 100 years earlier in his asylum with a mutilated ear and able to accurately capture this turbulent flow in what would become his most famous work, Starry Night.

Starry Night, Van Gogh, turbulence, art, art captures scienceAnimated Starry NightAll Van Gogh GIFs via TED-Ed.

The folks who noticed Van Gogh's ability to capture turbulence checked to see whether other artists did the same. Most of the Impressionists achieved "luminance" with their art—a striking and lifelike depiction of light's effect on color. While impressive, they did not capture or depict turbulence the way Van Gogh did.

The Scream, Edvard Munch, art, popular art, history, painting An animated depiction of The Scream.All Van Gogh GIFs via TED-Ed.

Not even Edvard Munch's The Scream, with it's swirling color and movement, could recreate what Van Gogh had accomplished.

Even in his darkest time, Van Gogh was able to capture—with eerie accuracy—one of nature's most complex and confusing concepts 100 years before scientists had the technology to do so.

Who would have thought that the beauty Van Gogh captured was foreshadowing what scientists would observe in the real, natural world in a century's time? To learn even more, watch the TED-Ed video below:

- YouTubeyoutu.be

This article originally appeared twelve years ago. It has been updated.

From Your Site Articles
art
Pop Culture

Beastie Boy MCA's 15-year-long 'haunted ring' prank on bandmate was sinister and hilarious

He waited 15 years for it to pay off. And it did.

via Artiquities/Wikimedia Commons and Beastie Boys/YouTube

Adam "MCA" Yauch and Adam "Ad-Rock" Horovitz.

The Beastie Boys are one of the most unique bands in the history of hip-hop and rock. They created a hybrid sound that mixed old-school hip-hop, hardcore punk, and buttery funk instrumentals that shouldn’t make sense together but still sound fresh to this day. They were also hilarious, as seen in their music video "Sabotage" where they dressed as ‘70s cops, and in their unhinged interviews where they never gave a straight answer.

Adam “Ad-Rock” Horovitz, Adam “MCA” Yauch, and Michael “Mike D” Diamond were able to create memorable music, groundbreaking videos, and great live performances because, at the band's root, was a great friendship forged in the hardcore punk record shops of the late ‘70s and early ‘80s New York City. Given their goofy, subversive image, it’s no surprise that they loved making each other laugh—and a story that Horovitz tells in the bonus material of 2020's Beastie Boys Story documentary proves that Yauch would go to the ends of the Earth to prank his friend.

youtu.be

The story starts in 1992 when the Beasties were performing as part of their Check Your Head tour in San Francisco. After the show, Horovitz was approached by a “super creepy dude” backstage who insisted that he take his ring. To get out of the situation, Horovitz took it. Weeks later when he got home to New York, he found the ring in his bag and, fearing it had a “hex” on it, Horovitz placed it on a little shelf in his bedroom.

The next day, the band was on a train to Washington, D.C., and Horovitz found the ring in his bag again. He was sure he had left the ring at his home and, confused, he began to replay the situation in his head. "I stood up from my train seat and I told Mike, Adam, and everyone about the ring. They started making fun of me," Horovitz said. So, he took the ring and threw it to the other end of the train car. “And I moved on with my life,” Horovitz said.


Fifteen years later, in 2007, the band was on tour in Santiago, Chile. While leaving their hotel, Horovitz reached into his backpack, and there it was: THE RING. “I f****** froze, I ran down to the lobby in full panic mode and told everybody, ‘The ring, I got the ring!” Horovitz exclaimed. But the band didn’t seem to care."

“Stop doing this to me,” Horovitz told the ring as he stood before a fountain in front of the hotel. He threw the ring in the fountain, and the band left Chile. “The next night, we’re all on the side of the stage, ready to play a show, and Yauch pulls me aside: 'Hey man, I put the ring in your bag.'" Horovitz couldn’t believe his ears. In 1992, Yauch picked up the ring Horovitz had thrown across the train car and waited for the perfect time to slip it back into Horovitz’s bag.

Yauch had since brought the ring with him every time they went on tour and waited for the perfect time to “sneak it into" Horovitz's bag. Yauch wasn’t ever going to tell Horovitz it was him, but because he seemed so “genuinely freaked out,” he let him in on the joke.

www.youtube.com

“Who has the prank stamina to hold it back for 15 years?” Horovitz asked the crowd. “I am not only impressed by this, but I am proud to have a friend with such practical and tactical joke skills. Thank you, Adam, for elevating the team that coach built around you.”

Adam Yauch passed away at the age of 47 in 2012 from cancer. After his passing, the band broke up, vowing to never play again without their founding member and friend.

www.youtube.com

From Your Site Articles
beastie boys
Joy

French folks trying to pronounce 'tricky' English words is a delightful dive into linguistics

Who'd have thought "thorough" and "hedgehog" would be harder to say than "psychophysicotherapeutics"?

Photo credit: Canva

Parisians tried to say specific words in English to hilarious effect.

Our human family speaks thousands of languages, expressing thoughts, ideas, and feelings with different sounds that make it impossible to understand one another even when we're saying the exact same thing. Linguistic studies teach us about how languages developed, how they are structured, what makes them unique or interesting, and why certain things are harder to say in some languages than others.

We learn from infancy how to form the sounds of our native language with our mouths. Early language development impacts what muscles we use and in what way, which becomes super obvious when you try to learn a different language as an adult. Depending on your native language and the one you are trying to acquire, certain words and sound combinations can be super tricky to pronounce. Sometimes the mouth just won't do it, but it can be a whole lot of fun to see people try.

That's why a video from Frenchly of Parisians trying to pronounce certain words in English has garnered millions of views. French pronunciation is famously challenging, but the ability to speak French perfectly creates its own challenges with other language. Ever seen a native French speaker try to pronounce "squirrel"? How about "thorough"? These French speakers did their best, but even they had to laugh as they fumbled their way through saying these words.

www.youtube.com

The most telling might be when "hedgehog" kept being pronounced "edge-ogg" and the woman who pronounced the "h" sound saying she felt like she was speaking German. Indeed, English has strong German roots, but most of us wouldn't necessarily think of the "h" sound as indicative of that fact.

Listening to these Parisians trying to overcome their French-speaking muscle training to pronounce these English words is as fun as watching Americans trying to pronounce tricky words in French. We're all in the same boat, battling our tongues as we try to overcome our mouths' resistance to making certain sounds and giggling over the inevitable flubs that come along with learning another language.

However, these kind of funny pronunciation mishaps aren't confined to different languages. Sometimes just having a specific accent can make certain things harder to say. Have you ever heard a Scottish person try to say "purple burglar alarm"? Hilarious.

youtu.be

As one commenter wrote, "Definitely shows how different languages requires the difference in movement of the jaw, mouth and tongue to create words."

"It’s essentially like trying to go against deeply rooted muscle memory," added another.

Another shared, "I'm French and used to live in Australia for a while. On the first weeks my jaw hurt so bad, I was hoping nobody would talk to me for a few days so I could recover from muscle pain!"

Other commenters celebrated the humor of it all:

"Others: 'Skweerul!' 'Sqwarrel!' 'Skyrel!' that one guy: S Q U A R E F R I E N D."

"The confidence behind 'square friend' has me doubting my own native pronunciation."

"Okay, 'square friend' is just a better name for them. Let's change it."

squirrel, french, english, words, funny, gifBring It Reaction GIF by reactionseditorGiphy

"They asked him to say “lettuce”, says the entire menu of Subway. That’s a flex."

"'Hedgehog.' 'I'm pretty sure that's a city.' Best quote of all time."

"This is so endearing and fun. It just goes to show that none of us should feel silly learning a new language. Language, no matter what it is, is hard!"

"It brings me some strange comfort to know that French-speaking people feel the same way about English words as I, an English-speaking person, feel about French words."

"French lady: 'th-th-therouuw' Also French lady: 'Psychophysicotherapeutics.'"

"I can’t believe that 'psychophysicotherapeutics' was the only word she could pronounce."

(The psychophysiotheraputics pronunciation actually makes sense since the word is quite similar in French: psychophysicothérapeutique. Thank you Greek and Latin roots.)

And yes, there is a similar video of Americans trying to pronounce French words:

www.youtube.com

It's a good reminder to be patient with each other and ourselves as we learn another language. It's not easy, and the more we can laugh at ourselves like these good-natured Parisians, the more enjoyable that learning process can be.

From Your Site Articles
language
Trending Stories