# data[].attributes.body
Latent dysfunctions are unintended negative consequences of social structures. This is at a kava bar. These were 18-year-olds playing poker. I had talked to them after, and they said it is something they do when they have free time. There was no money involved, so it was not illegal. The idea of getting drinks and "gambling" is only for older people for a reason, and this sets in stone a bad practice.

# data[].attributes.body
Material culture is something made that comes from the particular culture they are in. This was at a haunted house, and the owner was selling these handmade mugs and ceramic pieces. My brother talked to him for a while, as he is a ceramicist also. I learned he had been making things like this for ten years. The culture could be considered Halloween or horror.

# data[].attributes.body
A manifest function is an intended function of a social structure. This is a workout structure at a park, to allow people who may not workout elsewhere to have a place to. Not only is it useful, but it is in use. While still at the park, I saw a man using it when he was with his family. The creation has a positive impact in the way it intended, making it a manifest function.

# data[].attributes.body
An expressive leader is someone who reaches and influences people through their personality and emotional support. This is a painting I made in high school, with encouragement from the teacher. He would always praise effort and give good feedback on what went wrong. I took it for three years, and topics of painting turned to psychology. Every few months an old student would come in to visit him, and I only saw what happened in one class. Painting was never easy for me like some others, it was the environment that I wanted to stay in. Even newer students loved his class, and I was lucky to know him well. He is an example of an expressive leader from how many people he has influenced, even with barely knowing them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
'It Was Torture': An Abu Ghraib Interrogator Acknowledges 'Horrible Mistakes' (npr.org) (Quest 13)

# data[].attributes.body
The article recounts a man's events as someone who tortured others in while working as an interrogator in the Abu Ghraib prison. He conformed to the role and regretted it. Conformity is to act like your surroundings. In this case he followed along with the practices.

What happened here? He performed torturous, and not really helpful. They also attempted one of the devices, and lasted 1 minute.

What does this/it mean? The interrogation system is flawed. "I'm not sure why we've gotten to this point where we start to talk about the effectiveness of torture, as if that makes any difference whatsoever."(npr.org). Outside his role, he could better grasp how "enhanced interrogation" can work, but it is inhumane.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Editor's note: The following interview contains descriptions that some may find disturbing.
Forget "enhanced interrogation techniques" - Eric Fair says what he did as an interrogator in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was torture.

"The idea that there's interrogation, and then enhanced interrogation, and then torture - there is no middle ground," he tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. "Torture is an enhanced interrogation."

The techniques Fair used were considered legal by the U.S. government, but what he did still weighs on his conscience. Though he says he didn't practice any of the worst abuses, he used stress positions and sleep deprivation, and he now deeply regrets it. He describes the emotional and mental toll of his actions in his new memoir, Consequence.

"We hurt people, and not just physically," he says. "We destroyed them emotionally, and ... I think at the very least it's a just punishment for us that we suffer some of those consequences, too."

Fair worked as an interrogator in Abu Ghraib and Fallujah, employed by a private company under contract to the military. He had previously served in the military and worked as a police officer in his hometown of Bethlehem, Pa.

After working as an interrogator, he returned to Iraq as an intelligence analyst for the NSA. He says what he did during his time in Abu Ghraib and Fallujah was abhorrent.

"My behavior towards Iraqi detainees did not meet the standard that I had simply been raised on," he says. "It was not the way that I should've behaved. There are long discussions about why those things happened ... and how difficult it was to sort of break from those expectations of being a soldier - but none of that matters. I made horrible mistakes. ... I have a responsibility to confess those things openly."

Interview Highlights
On his first impressions of Abu Ghraib prison
I think it was difficult to be surprised, because there were so few expectations about what we were getting into. None of us had been to war. There were a few - some of the older gentlemen - may have seen action in the first Gulf War, but on a very limited basis. We certainly had never done anything like staff a large-scale prison in the middle of a combat zone.

The first thing that may have seemed abnormal was that we were housed in old prison cells. And so Abu Ghraib is an enormous prison complex with quite a few buildings. And one of the buildings that had housed Iraqi prisoners during the days of Saddam Hussein had been emptied out, and we were led to a cell with actual bars on the door, and that's where we lived. There was a sense, I think, from the beginning that we were almost going to make it up as we went along.
On what he was ordered to find out from prisoners
It varied a great deal. There were prisoners who certainly came in with large packets with a lot of background information about who they'd been during the Saddam [Hussein] regime - who their associates were - and there were others who came in with almost nothing.

A common phrase that we became familiar with was, "detainee was suspected of anti-coalition activities," and that was literally all they would come in with. There were what were known as PIRs ... which stands for "Priority Intelligence Requirement." ...

The main PIR in 2004 was the location of chemical weapons. We were still very much under the impression that Saddam had chemical weapons in Iraq, and so every interrogation - there were certainly other types of information you might want to gain, depending on who that detainee or prisoner was - but the location of chemical weapons was the priority.
On the techniques he used at Abu Ghraib

As a prior enlisted soldier, the expectation was that you completed your job and you completed your mission, and these were necessary tools in that mission.

There's the whole debate about the difference between "enhanced interrogation" and torture and where's the division? For me, the stress positions that we used were in many ways based on the kind of stress positions that we had gone through in basic training - whether it was being in the push-up position for a certain amount of time, or holding your arms out to your side with books in them, until you essentially achieved muscle failure. The idea was to exhaust someone. These were the techniques that I was most familiar with and that I used. ...

Again, there was never a point at which I thought I knew I had crossed a line. I think I knew that we were being aggressive and there was a certain confusion around why we're doing this, but as a prior enlisted soldier, the expectation was that you completed your job and you completed your mission, and these were necessary tools in that mission.

I would not suggest that I used them frequently, but I think that even by sort of dipping my toes into that puddle, I essentially went sort of swimming in that pool of depravity.
On the "Palestinian Chair"
When I arrived in Fallujah there was a small chair, about 2 feet tall, made of plywood and two by fours, and it had plastic zip ties used to secure someone's hands on the bottom. The Palestinian Chair was intended to put someone in a crouched position from which they could not recover and forced all their weight onto their thighs and their calves and they stayed there for as long as an interrogator decided they were going to stay. ...

A close friend of mine and I did lock ourselves into the Palestinian Chair at one point to get a sense for what it was. We both lasted less than about a minute. ... I did not [use it on anyone]; I did witness its use near the end of my stay in Fallujah. I had walked past the door of an interrogation room which was open and I witnessed one of the prisoners in the Palestinian Chair.

This is the point ... where I recognized that I had gone to a place that I wasn't coming back from, that there was no way to suggest that that kind of treatment of another human being wasn't abusive and that it wasn't torture.
On the severe interrogation techniques used at the "hard site," where the most-high-value detainees were kept
Nudity was sort of the theme of the entire prison. The number of Iraqis that were naked was shocking, and it was cold. Iraq certainly gets hot in the summer, everyone knows that, but it also gets very cold in the winter. This was December. Sleep deprivation and forced standing were the most common thing that most prisoners were suffering. They were handcuffed to the cell walls in a position in which they were standing, their hands were placed down between their legs, and then their hands were handcuffed back behind them, which ... denies you the opportunity to sit down or to rest, and so you can combine what were essentially two enhanced techniques - sleep deprivation and forced standing. It was a shock to the system.
On why he didn't speak out at the time
I think the natural and very fair question is: Why I didn't say something or why I didn't quit? As a contractor I could've quit at any point. But again, the desire that had been sort of drilled into me to stay committed to things in the United States Army, these were my comrades, whether they were contractors or whether they were soldiers, I knew the uniforms, I knew the ranks. ... At least at that point I still supported the invasion and the war effort, so I felt that I had an obligation to be a part of it. There was a recognition that certainly war was going to be ugly and I think I did my best to justify what was going on.
On his response when the story of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib broke in the U.S.
I and some of my close friends ... were shocked by how shocked the American people were. We were not implementing enhanced interrogation techniques and torture behind closed doors. We weren't doing this and then going back to our bunks at night and suggesting "I hope no one ever finds out about this" or "Don't tell anyone." This was part of what we viewed as an authorized program.

Now, there are all sorts of different opinions about exactly what was authorized and who was authorizing it - that's for someone else to decide - but as interrogators none of us thought that we were doing anything wrong. There might've been a sense that were doing something morally wrong, but legally wrong, no.
On how he defines torture
I want to be careful about different levels of torture, because this is what allows someone like Donald Trump to suggest that waterboarding is not torture and "so much worse" is not torture, that we can just change the legal definition. You could bring six lawyers in here and you could get six different opinions about what is torture. I think that the minute you violate another human being's will, as Americans, we have an obligation to call that torture.
On why he will not take part in the discussion of whether torture is effective
I refuse to suggest that torture is successful on any level. And I'm not sure that it matters; it shouldn't matter to anyone in this country. I'm not sure why we've gotten to this point where we start to talk about the effectiveness of torture, as if that makes any difference whatsoever.

Torture is wrong. Americans, all Americans, should know better. That's what makes us attractive; what makes us attractive is the way we do things, it's the example that we set. What makes us attractive is not how tough we are or how good we are at extracting information, and anyone who thinks that way I think fails to understand what this country is about. So I've left that discussion about whether or not torture is effective or not behind. It simply doesn't matter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'It Was Torture': An Abu Ghraib Interrogator Acknowledges 'Horrible Mistakes'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The techniques Eric Fair used still weigh on his conscience. "There is no middle ground," he says. "Torture is an enhanced interrogation." His new memoir is Consequence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Schitt's Creek - The Wine Not the Label (Quest 20)

# data[].attributes.body
In this clip, the woman asks confused about his preference in wine. The preference being an analogy for his sexuality. He says he likes the wine not the label, showing he is pansexual.

Who benefits from this? People in LGBTQIA+ do not get recognition, especially popular media like this. It not only recognizes it, but also makes it normal.

How do people interact with this? In the comments, people are happy with the casual demeanor of mentioning pansexuality in the show. My mom also enjoys this show, showing the range of audience and who it could influence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Green Day - Holiday [Official Music Video] (Quest 5)

# data[].attributes.body
Green Day's Holiday is an example of protest on war. You can see this in lyrics like "The shame, the ones who died without a name" or "Hear the dogs howling out of key, to a hymn called "Faith and Misery". Protest is an example of deviance. Deviance is the violation of a norm. America was in war of the release, so it shows deviance against the decisions of the government.

Who or what is it for? Why was it created? This came out in 2005, two years into the Iraq War. The song was to protest war for its violent nature, and also disapprove of their own country's actions.

Who benefits from this? Since Green day is a loud voice, it allows more people to create a norm questioning what is going on in the world. The audience for is also more antigovernment, so it caters to the right people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Green Day - Holiday [Official Music Video] [4K Upgrade]

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
19-1392 6j37 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) (Quest 16)

# data[].attributes.body
The Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case took away the legal right to have abortions. Why? They claimed that it was unconstitutional and was never regularly legal in Americas History. Sexism is to put another sex into an inferior box. In this, a law was created that makes life less open for women. It was created to overturn Roe v Wade, which previously women could legally get an abortion. The new law says that we as a country never legalized or "normalized" abortion.

How does the meaning of this change depending on who is using or observing it? From someone non-religious, this is taking the rights to womans human rights. But from someone religious, this is necessary, and the woman is wrong for getting an abortion. The power that people had to overturn Roe V Wade must be a lot, because it is normalized socially. Even with denying it was ever a common practice; you can see it helping people where it is legal.

Who doesn't benefit from this? Women do not benefit from this. The decision can also impact lower income families, who cannot afford a kid. Or young adults, who accidentally got pregnant and do not have the time for a kid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Elektra Reading A Transphobe For Filth - Full Scene | Pose (Quest 9)

# data[].attributes.body
This is from the show Pose, and these three women are transgender. A lady comes up to them and begins with a microaggression. Elektra, the character, tells her how she has fought to be where she's at, and she understands who she is. Gender is a spectrum, and this clip shows how people should be comfortable in their identity.

Who made/created this? This is a show on Netflix, called pose. It features both African American characters who also happen to be transgender. It was created to better understand, and possibly relate to the struggles of these people.
How do people interact with this? People on YouTube love the representation of the show and relate to how the characters act. I read reviews on the show, and people seem to articulate the same. Even when someone did not understand the actions, it helps put a light on how others struggle.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Elektra Reading A Transphobe For Filth - Full Scene | Pose

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Waitress berates Latino couple for speaking Spanish | What Would You Do? | WWYD (Quest 17)

# data[].attributes.body
This shows how Spanish speaking customers can be confusing to an English-speaking waitress. The way she treated the Spanish customers is racist. Racism is a hatred or feeling of less of another race, and she avoids the fact there are other ways to communicate.

How do people interact with this? The first two interactions were the most notable. The first guy was wise and let her know we are all people, we all "bleed and sleep". The second couple let her know she is doing the right thing from being hateful towards non-English speakers.

What does this/it mean? With belligerent nature of the customers, with comments like "live here learn the language". It really begs the question if this was really about them speaking another language, since we do not all learn a whole new language every time we travel?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Waitress berates Latino couple for speaking Spanish | What Would You Do? | WWYD