Latest news with #HuffPost
Buzz Feed
13 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Buzz Feed
Gen Z's WW3 Fashion Trends Taking Over TikTok
Hot Topic 🔥 Full coverage and conversation on Politics While President Donald Trump realizes that his Israel-Iran ceasefire agreement may not be as binding as he suspected ― both countries continue to fire missiles at each other ― Gen Z isn't wasting any time: On TikTok, 'WW3 fits' has been trending for days, with teens and twenty-somethings sharing the camo-heavy looks they jokingly say they'll wear in the event of a nuclear world war. Fun? 'First war kinda nervous,' Avery, a content creator, captioned a clip featuring her WW3 wardrobe, which includes a camouflage miniskirt and a bomber jacket. A few TikTokkers who are enlisted in the US Army joked that they already had their WWIII look picked out for them, flashing to closets full of fatigues. Ethan Hillis, 26, showed off his potential World War III looks in a video he was careful to caption: 'just a coping mechanism.' There's combat chic (a green trench coat), spy (a fedora and coat) and political ex-wife (basically MAGA mom cosplay). 'My WWIII fit is a bit of satire and a bit of style, think something like combat but make it couture,' Hillis told HuffPost in an email interview. 'I wanted to play with the idea of absurd preparedness while still looking fabulous,' he said. 'It felt like a funny and fashion-forward way to comment on the state of the world without diving into doom.' The videos are all soundtracked to Kesha's 2010 hit 'Blow' (Sample lyric: 'This place about to blow, oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh'), which only adds to the absurdity. Most people joke along in the comment sections of the videos: 'This generation is so unserious. I love it,' one person wrote. 'This generation is only afraid of pregnancy,' another joked. Others found the brand of humor distasteful, as the conflict between Israel and Iran continues to unfold and airstrikes have left at least 28 people dead in Israel and hundreds in Iran. 'Lives are at stake,' one person wrote in the comments of Avery's video. 'The future of our world is unfolding in front of us, and YOU POST THIS.' Gen Z-ers we spoke to say they recognize the severity of what's happening and aren't trying to downplay it with their videos. 'The jokes are coming from a place of real exhaustion and awareness,' Hillis said. 'I don't think people realize how tuned in Gen Z is. All the irony and outfits are just the packaging. Underneath is real fear, and real care.' Christina Spah, a 26-year-old who posted a video of her WW3 fits ― looks that are ''apocalyptic chic' meets 'functional mom,'' she told HuffPost ― sees the jokes as a coping mechanism. 'As a military spouse and stay-at-home mom, I don't have much time to cry or panic in difficult times. I have to hold my head high and pretend everything is fine until I put my daughters to bed at night,' she said. 'In the meantime, finding humor about the prospect of another war in the Middle East allows me to feel any form of control in this awful situation.' Gen Z is used to using dark humor to get through hard times and trauma. There's little that Gen Z ― the demographic born between the late 1990s and the early 2010s ― won't meme-ify: On social media, everything from the the 2023 Titan submersible fiasco, to the 9/11 terror attacks, and celebrities' deaths and suicides (or being 'unalived,' as they prefer to say) ― have gotten the meme treatment. (Gen Z wasn't even alive when the twin towers fell. To be, though, comedians were cracking jokes about 9/11 no less than a few weeks later ― at least Gilbert Gottfried was.) They haven't experienced any comparable terrorist attacks but Gen Z has been through a lot themselves: A pandemic and lockdowns, the Great Recession for the older ones, school shootings and subsequent active shooter drills, protests over police brutality and political polarization that's damaged friendships and splintered families. Gen Z's supposed 'unseriousness' on social media may actually be a deeply layered response to chronic exposure to the news cycle, said Rana Bull, a therapist who works primarily with Gen Z, and the owner of Burrow and Bloom Therapy in Arizona. 'They've experienced a constant stream of secondhand trauma through social media,' Bull said. That affects us all, but Gen Z experienced it in their formative years. Secondhand trauma, or indirect exposure to distressing events, can desensitize people over time, especially when it's experienced repeatedly and without resolution, she said. 'For Gen Z, this has resulted in a sort of emotional callus; they're rarely surprised by negative news because, for them, it's not a rarity — it's the norm,' she said. There's also a neurological explanation for why Gen Z may appear disengaged. The brain's threat-response system is activated differently when a stressor is experienced directly versus indirectly, Bull explained. Social media creates a layer of emotional distance — what psychologists call psychological distancing — which makes it easier to compartmentalize what they're seeing. 'Humor, irony and absurdity become coping tools that help them regain a sense of control or reduce emotional overload,' she said. It's the same kind of dark humor used among first responders or health care workers, Bull said ― when something is too overwhelming to fully process, laughter is tension-breaking. 'So what might appear as flippancy or being 'unserious' is actually a form of emotional regulation and resilience, albeit one that can be easily misunderstood.' the therapist said. Sage Grazer, a therapist in Los Angeles, doesn't see Gen Z as particularly 'unserious' as a generation. Gen Z came of age online (three quarters of Gen Z spend most of their free time online, and many get their news from it, too), so it's little surprise they process their emotions there as well. But making arguably stupid jokes about incomprehensible geopolitical issues is a long tradition; consider how Charlie Chaplin used satire to defuse and address the looming threat of Adolf Hitler in 'The Great Dictator' in 1940. There's limitations to treating things glibly all the time, or without much reflection on why it's your reflex, Grazer noted. 'Humor can lighten the mood or offer a more positive perspective but it can also become a defense mechanism to shield yourself from harsh realities,'the therapist told HuffPost. 'While we're not meant to bear the emotional burden of all of the world's tragedy constantly, leaning on humor can encourage people to be complacent or callous,' she explained. 'I also see exposure to all of the jokes as contributing to a numbing or disconnection from the reality of what's going on in the world.' But given the unwieldy way President Trump and his war cabinet have communicated operations to the American public, an argument could be made that this conflict has an air of unseriousness, even if that's gravely not the case. And unlike millennials, who grew up seeing friends and family enlist for US invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gen Z has yet to fully experience the political culture of the US at war. (Granted, the US didn't end combat operations in Afghanistan until 2014, and the last United States military forces to depart the country did so on August 30, 2021.) An earnest question on Reddit's No Stupid Questions subreddit over the weekend is a testament to how unfamiliar Gen Z is with the prospect of warfare: 'What are you supposed to do if a war actually starts?' a person ― one who was clearly either not alive or else very young at the height of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars ― asked. 'Like, are we just supposed to keep going to work as normal and live like nothing is happening? Do jobs give time off if you're city is targeted?'
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Health
- Yahoo
I'm An ER Physician. Here Are 5 Types Of Pain I'd Never Ignore.
When it comes to severe medical situations, emergency medicine doctors see it all. They're the physicians who folks of all ages rush to when something serious goes wrong. But just what does 'serious' mean? What kinds of pain constitute a visit to the emergency department? Experts say that it's a hard question to answer. 'Unfortunately, it can be so variable from patient to patient, and sometimes people that even have minor pain may have something very serious going on. So [pain is] not something that anybody should ignore,' said Dr. Michael Turturro, a professor of emergency medicine at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. Meaning, you should take pain seriously and see a doctor if you have any concerns. It's better to be told nothing is wrong than to regret not seeing a medical professional sooner. (We know there are financial considerations that come along with this — more on that below.) While all pain is worth taking seriously, experts told HuffPost there are certain pains that are generally across-the-board alarming and reason enough for medical attention. Here's what they are: 'Generally, pain that is sudden and severe and does not go away is something that should really get your attention,' Turturro said. This goes for pain anywhere on your body, he noted. A medical professional will need to evaluate the pain and determine if it's serious or not, but if you have a sudden and alarming new pain, it's a good idea to get it checked out and not to ignore it. 'We'd rather people err on the side of caution,' Turturro added. 'If they're concerned enough that they feel something is not right and they need to be evaluated, then they should be evaluated whether or not it's related to something serious or not.' Say you're worried about new hand pain that came out of nowhere. Instead of brushing it off, consider seeing a doctor. 'If it's concerning enough that it is troubling to you, and particularly if it's a pain you've never experienced before, that's something you should really consider getting urgent medical attention for,' he added. Chest pain is often (and rightfully) associated with heart attacks, which makes this type of pain important to take seriously. 'Chest pain is definitely a concerning one to us. If people are developing that sudden onset of chest pain, something they've never felt before, or they've had it before [and] they've been told that they have heart problems, they should be checked out sooner rather than later,' said Dr. Mark Conroy, emergency medicine physician at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. Turturro said chest pain is particularly worrisome in older people and for folks who have risk factors for heart disease, such as hypertension, diabetes and high cholesterol. Beyond heart attacks, sharp chest pain could also mean other serious issues, such as a blood clot in the lung or a tear of major vessels in the chest, Turturro said. But it's impossible to say exactly what chest pain could signify in one person versus another, and it isn't always serious. 'Chest pain could be rather related to very benign causes as well, such as heartburn,' Turturro added. Since lots of things can manifest as chest pain, you shouldn't totally panic, but you also shouldn't discount your chest pain (or, once again, any pain). Instead, you should see a doctor who can determine what's going on. According to Conroy, lower leg pain, specifically in the calf, can be worrisome when it's accompanied by leg swelling and/or redness of the calf. 'I always get concerned that they might have the concerning symptoms for a blood clot, or what we call a DVT, deep venous thrombosis,' Conroy said. 'That would be a concerning pain that I would definitely want someone to get seen sooner rather than later for, especially if they recently had surgery and they've been just laying in bed, or ... they had a long plane ride recently,' he noted. Back pain is a common affliction that can happen in a number of scenarios, such as sleeping in a bad position, working out improperly, sitting in a chair that doesn't provide support and more. While it's always worth taking care of your back pain, there is one specific type that Conroy said needs medical attention. If you have back pain that feels like a tearing sensation through your upper back or at the back of the chest,you should see a professional as soon as possible. 'Having that tearing sensation can represent a problem with the main large blood vessel in your body, called the aorta,' Conroy said. 'The abdomen is one of those [pains] I think every emergency physician gets a little bit nervous about because there's just so many things that can go on,' Conroy said. 'So instead of specific conditions, it's really more, how are the symptoms presenting?' 'If you're having abdominal pain, or what we call flank pain ... kind of the right or left portion of your lower back or lower abdomen, then certainly that could be concerning for things like kidney stones, or if you're having fevers with it, it can be a kidney infection,' he said. It could also be appendicitis if the flank pain is accompanied by nausea and vomiting, Conroy added. If you have this kind of lower abdominal pain along with any of the above problematic symptoms, it's a good idea to see a doctor quickly. While going to the doctor, and especially an emergency medicine department, can feel foreboding, you should never ignore or dismiss your pain. Seeing a doctor about an alarming problem is the best move for your health, even if the pain ends up being nothing at all — which is the ideal outcome. 'It may be that you get a brief evaluation, you get some kind of screening labs or screening tests, and hopefully, some reassurance that the worst-case scenario is not what's going on,' Conroy said. It can certainly be frustrating to hear nothing is wrong while still having to pay for health care costs, particularly if you're paying emergency room prices, which tend to be much higher than routine visits or scheduled specialist visits. If you need fast medical attention but not emergent medical attention, you can consider visiting your local urgent care, which tends to be cheaper than a visit to the ER. You can also call your primary care provider's office to see if they have after-hours or last-minute appointments available, which would also be cheaper than an ER visit. That said, certain issues do require immediate emergency department visits and are worth the cost for your safety. Urgent care staff or your doctor should be able to help you determine if emergency care is needed — and, if you're not sure if you need emergent attention, it's best to go to the ER. I'm A Colorectal Cancer Doctor. Here Are 5 Things I'd Never Do. If Your Stomach Pain Feels Like This, It's Time To Go To The ER 7 Things ER Doctors Say You Should Always Do After A Fall
Buzz Feed
a day ago
- Lifestyle
- Buzz Feed
This $8 Stain Remover Is Straight Up ‘Witchcraft'
Was a meal even good if it didn't end up on your shirt somehow? The running joke in my foodie family is that if someone's not wearing the meal by dish duty time, it couldn't have been that great. Knowing our proclivity for enthusiastic eating I've naturally become a stain-removal connoisseur over the years. Every pen, stick, sheet, gel and spray has found its way into my rotation at one point or another. So when this kids' stain remover came across my radar, my interest was piqued. Hear me out: you might not think a stain remover marketed specifically towards kiddos would be the workhorse that it is, but this product is garnering a cult following for good reason. First, and most importantly, it works, according to the thousands of folks who have tried it and left reviews at Amazon. Smashed blueberries, a coffee dribble down your shirt, grass stained knees, blood, grease and ages old mystery stains are no match for this spray. It's fast, effective and safe – EPA Safer Choice Certified-safe, to be specific. Naturally, it's great for baby stains, as promised. It's designed to work lightning fast without the use of harmful chemicals like sulfates or formaldehydes. Just spritz, blot and launder as usual. Reviewer Augustina wrote that 'as a mom, I've dealt with all kinds of food and drink stains, and this spray tackles them effortlessly,' summing it up by calling it 'an essential for parents!' Beyond baby duty, this stain remover's off-label uses are turning heads. Another reviewer hypes this spray as 'freaking phenomenal to use in cars' claiming that it took out years old smoke stains from her used car's upholstery with just 'a few sprays of this bad boy and a rag to rub it in.' One HuffPost editor recently shared that she loves using this stain to clean her sneakers and Eddie's review backs this up, adding that their 'Nike white shoes were dirty, muddy, coffee stains,' then they 'sprayed this and waited 5 minutes' and 'it took it all right off!!' So, don't be fooled by the label. True, it's a parent essential, but I'd go as far as to say it's a person essential. We're all guilty of spills and slip-ups. Stains happen, but no matter the mess, Miss Mouth's Messy Eater stain treater spray can take it on. Let this stuff work its magic on stains and spills and you'll never look back. Honestly, you might just forget what a stain is. Get it from Amazon for $7.97+ (available in multi-packs, pens, various spray bottle styles, and in bundles)
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Pornhub, XNXX in panic? US Supreme Court ruling lets states crack down on online adult content access
The US Supreme Court has upheld a Texas law mandating age verification for pornography websites, a decision that has stirred concerns within the adult entertainment industry. This 6-3 ruling supports Texas House Bill 1181, which requires users to provide age proof before accessing such sites, potentially impacting access and raising First Amendment and privacy concerns. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Supreme Court Backs Texas Porn Law, Shaking Up the Adult Industry A Major Shift in First Amendment Interpretation Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Justice Clarence Thomas: Smartphones Changed Everything Free Speech Advocates Say Adults Pay the Price Justice Elena Kagan Warns of Privacy Risks in Dissent Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads FAQs The US Supreme Court on Friday upheld a Texas law that requires users to prove their age before viewing pornography sites, as per a report. The ruling has set off alarm bells across the adult entertainment industry , where sites like Pornhub and XNXX now face an uncertain future in states enforcing similar laws, according to a HuffPost 6–3 ruling supports Texas House Bill 1181 , a 2023 law that mandates online pornography platforms verify users' ages by giving age proof, as per the report. Any site that fails to comply faces steep fines: $10,000 per day and up to $250,000 if minors gain access, as per the HuffPost to the report, now eighteen states, including Texas, have laws in effect that require age verification for pornography sites, while six other states have enacted such laws that are not yet in READ: Supreme court limits nationwide injunctions: Implications for Donald Trump's birthright citizenship order The decision marks a shift from previous First Amendment rulings. In the 1990s, the Supreme Court struck down two federal laws that attempted to regulate online pornography, the Communications Decency Act and the Child Online Protection Act, ruling they were unconstitutionally restricting free speech, according to HuffPost Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, and pointed out that technology has advanced since the court's rulings on those laws enacted in the 1990s, as he said, 'With the rise of the smartphone and instant streaming, many adolescents can now access vast libraries of video content—both benign and obscene—at almost any time and place, with an ease that would have been unimaginable at the time' which the court last ruled on online pornography, quoted wrote that, 'The statute advances the State's important interest in shielding children from sexually explicit content,' adding, 'And, it is appropriately tailored because it permits users to verify their ages through the established methods of providing government-issued identification and sharing transactional data," as quoted in the READ: Congress cut off? White House limits intel sharing after Iran strikes report leak But lawyers for the Free Speech Coalition, which is a consortium of porn sites, argued that the law placed an undue burden on the speech of adults by requiring them to undergo age verification, while acknowledging that states may restrict access to pornography for minors, as reported by Thomas rejected their argument by pointing out that the First Amendment does not protect against age verification. He argued that, '[A]dults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification, and the statute can readily be understood as an effort to restrict minors' access,' adding, 'Any burden experienced by adults is therefore only incidental to the statute's regulation of activity that is not protected by the First Amendment,' as quoted in the HuffPost Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent, saying, 'Under ordinary First Amendment doctrine, this Court should subject H. B. 1181 to strict scrutiny,' adding, 'That is because H. B. 1181 covers speech constitutionally protected for adults; impedes adults' ability to view that speech; and imposes that burden based on the speech's content. Case closed,' as quoted in the pointed out that because the Texas law requires adults to verify their age by providing a driver's license or data 'associated with things like a job or mortgage,' it acts as 'a deterrent' for adults looking to access pornography, according to the HuffPost also said that, 'It is not, contra the majority, like having to flash ID to enter a club,' adding, 'It is turning over information about yourself and your viewing habits—respecting speech many find repulsive—to a website operator, and then to ... who knows? The operator might sell the information; the operator might be hacked or subpoenaed,' as quoted in the if you're in a state with one of these laws. Sites will likely require age proof through ID or other may be blocked from accessing the site in states enforcing these laws.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Rules With Trump On Birthright Citizenship Challenge
In a move that threatens to spark chaos throughout the country, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday partially blocked a series of nationwide injunctions on President Donald Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. The ruling was 6-3 and with fierce dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote Friday's opinion. 'No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates. Today the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship,' Sotomayor wrote, adding that 'with the stroke of a pen, the President has made a solemn mockery of our Constitution.' As the Supreme Court delivers decisions that will irrevocably alter our democracy, independent journalism is more vital than ever. Your support helps HuffPost hold power to account and keep you informed at this critical moment. Stand with the free press. . The Supreme Court's ruling aligns with arguments Solicitor General D. John Sauermade on behalf of the administration when he said that lower courts should not have such sweeping ability to put a check on the executive branch's policymaking. Writing Friday's opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett lamented the use of nationwide injunctions in recent years and took time to emphasize that in the first 100 days of Trump's administration, at least 23 universal injunctions had been issued. As legal experts recently pointed out to HuffPost, nationwide injunctions have long been a subject of fierce bipartisan debate: While they can be a tool to broadly protect the public's rights against government overreach, they can also be a vehicle for a plaintiff who wants to politicize the judiciary by seeking out nationwide injunctions through forum shopping, or picking a specific district to sue in because the plaintiff suspects the courts will rule their way. Instead of district courts being allowed to grant nationwide injunctions, the Trump administration argued the only relief that should be granted is to the specific person who sues in that venue. Barrett agreed. The plaintiffs who challenged the order characterized injunctions as a way the court can grant relief broadly, but Barrett said, 'the question is not whether an injunction offers complete relief to everyone potentially affected by an allegedly unlawful act; it is whether an injunction will offer complete relief to the plaintiffs before the court.' (Emphasis original) 'Here, prohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship. Extending the injunction to cover all other similarly situated individuals would not render her relief any more complete,' Barrett wrote. The sentiment is similar to the position the high court has taken around deportations and habeas corpus issues: in short, individuals must bring their own unique, individual cases. The majority's decision appears to ignore inherent logistical difficulties that come for many plaintiffs and petitioners who lack resources to sue or simply cannot access courts. In her dissent, Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson highlighted this fact. 'The wealthy and well connected will have little difficulty securing legal representation, going to court and obtaining injunctive relief in their own name if the Executive violates their rights,' Jackson wrote. 'Consequently, the zone of lawlessness the majority has now authorized will disproportionately impact the poor, the uneducated, the unpopular — i.e. those who may not have the wherewithal to lawyer up, and will all too often find themselves beholden to the Executive's whims. This is yet another crack in the foundation of the rule of law.' The Supreme Court's ruling did not discuss the merits of Trump's birthright citizenship order, nor did it delve into the14th Amendment guarantee that anyone born on U.S. soil or within its territories is entitled to citizenship at birth. Nor did the majority's ruling acknowledge over 100 years of precedent upholding that interpretation of the amendment, including the 1898 caseU.S. v. Wong Kim Arkwhich stated that children born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents are still considered U.S. citizens.) The court did not rule on those merits because the Trump administration did not present that question. Besides Washington, D.C., the states who sued to stop the order include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. This is a developing story. Please check back for updates. Supreme Court Conservatives Wrangle With Letting Trump's Birthright Citizenship Restriction Go Into Effect This Could Be The End Of America As We Know It Trump Knows He Won't Win On Birthright — So He's Got A Different Strategy
