upworthy
Add Upworthy to your Google News feed.
Google News Button
Culture

Still think the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery? The Confederate states would disagree.

Still think the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery? The Confederate states would disagree.

Was the Civil War fought over slavery or states' rights? People love to debate this question, and many seem to believe it's a matter of opinion.


But the truth is there's no debate to be had. We don't have to conjecture. We know that the Confederate states' primary motive was maintaining the right to enslave black people because they said so themselves.

We have the primary documents that explain, in detail, why Confederates wanted to break off from the U.S., and they are eye-opening to say the least. Even those who already understand slavery to be the primary cause of the Civil War may be shocked to see how blatantly and proudly the Southern states announced their intention to defend white supremacy and their right to own black people.

MARCH 21, 1861 SPEECH BY VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CONFEDERACY, ALEXANDER STEPHENS

First let's take a look at a speech given by Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, just a few weeks before the Civil War officially began. After describing some details of the Confederacy's Constitution, Vice President Stephens stated that slavery was the "immediate cause" of the South's "revolution."

"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution, African slavery as it exists amongst us – the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact."

I mean, he said it right there. Slavery of black people was the "immediate cause" of secession and the impending war.

But he didn't stop there. No, he laid out the entire racist foundation of the new government in no uncertain terms.

"The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away . . . Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the 'storm came and the wind blew.'

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

Hmmm, so the South literally founded the Confederate government on the idea that slavery wasn't just acceptable, but that black people were actually supposed to be enslaved. This was stated plainly and proudly.

Need a moment? Yeah, me too. Take a deep breath, because we're just getting going here.

RELATED: This West Point colonel will tell you what the Civil War was really about.

Moving on, Stephens called the Northern abolitionists "fanatics," saying, "They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. . . ."

There's more.

"With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system."

Stephens then went on to explain how God designed humanity so that one race would be subordinate to another, and that going against slavery is going against "the ordinance of the Creator."

It seriously could not be more clear: The Confederates were proud white supremacists who wanted to build a country around that ideal.

Lest anyone argue that this was just one speech or just one man's opinion, or that maybe Stephens didn't speak for the whole Confederacy (despite being Vice President of it), let's look at what the Confederate states themselves said.

DECLARATION OF THE CAUSES OF SECEDING STATES, 1861

In addition to the Ordinances of Secession announcing the departure of each of the Confederate states from the U.S., a handful of Southern states issued a Declaration of the Causes of Seceding States, explaining in detail why they felt they needed to leave the Union.

You can read the document in its entirety here, but let's take a look at some highlights. (The first thing to note is that some iteration of the word "slave" appears 83 times in these declarations. So, yeah.)

GEORGIA

Right out of the gate, Georgia let everyone know that slavery is at the forefront of its concerns. The second sentence of their declaration reads:

"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

Okay then.

As we read through Georgia's lengthy history lesson of how the states got to this point, it's worth noting that they rarely referred to the "Northern" and "Southern" states. Instead, they referred to "non-slaveholding states" and "slave-holding states." That alone ought to be a clue as to their motivations.

But if that's not enough, here's where Georgia stated that the Republican Party's anti-slavery stance justified its decision to leave the Union.

"A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.

While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen."

Finally, they summed up how racial equality and the prohibition of slavery, being the primary concern of the non-slaveholding states, was something they simply would not abide.

"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us."

Thank you, Georgia, for clarifying your position.

MISSISSIPPI

Again, right out the gate, Mississippi told everyone that slavery is their main reason for seceding. Here's how their declaration begins, no sentences skipped:

"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world."

Once they made that clear, they explained how they simply couldn't live without slavery because black people were made to tend their crops.

"Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove."

Mississippi just stated that their only choices were to give up slavery or secede. And if that still seems unclear somehow, here are some of the "facts" they included for why they couldn't stay in the Union:

"It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction."

"It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion."

"It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain."

"It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst."

"It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists."

How can anyone say that the war wasn't about slavery at this point?

SOUTH CAROLINA

South Carolina's declaration started off sounding like it was all about "FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES," as they used that all-caps phrase repeatedly in recounting the history of why the colonies broke off from England. But when they got into their specific grievances with the Union, guess what they complained about. Yup, slavery.

"The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution."

They went on and on about non-slaveholding states trying to control their "property" and "institutions." We could guess what they meant by that, but we don't have to because they told us.

"Those States have assume [sic] the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

They even got specific about states that passed anti-slavery laws, which they claimed went against the Constitution.

"The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."

Again, South Carolina was clear that the North's hostility toward slavery was what drove them to break away, thereby leading to war.

TEXAS

Ah, Texas. If you thought the deep south was the only place that gleefully celebrated the enslavement of black people, take a look at the Lone Star State's declaration. It's a doozy.

RELATED: A school assignment asked for 3 benefits of slavery. This kid gave the only good answer.

First, here's how Texas described being accepted into the Confederacy:

"She [Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery—the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits—a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."

So, not only is white people enslaving black people fine and dandy—it's a subjugation that should go on forever and ever. Got it.

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

Sorry, I need to pause for a second. "Their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery"? And "the debasing doctrine of equality of all men"? The state of Texas said here that equality was not just unnatural but against God's law. We all know that racism was the standard of the day, but I don't think most of us were taught how deeply held these white supremacist beliefs were in the South's own words.

And again, they weren't done.

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

Still not done...

"That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states."

"Mutually beneficial to both bond and free." Oh yes, those lucky slaves, living just as the Almighty intended.

If you wonder why people see the Confederate flag as a racist symbol, this is why. If you wonder why honoring the leaders of the Confederacy with monuments and holidays is horrifically problematic, this is why.

We have it straight from the Confederates' mouths. The Civil War was fought because the South wanted the right to keep slavery and the North wanted to abolish it. People can say it was about states' rights, but it's disingenuous to omit the primary moral, political, and economic right the South was fighting to maintain—the legal and systematic subjugation and enslavement of black people.

They seriously could not have been any clearer about it.

generation jones, gen jones, gen jonesers, girls in 1970s, 1970s, teens 1970s
Image via Wikimedia Commons

Generation Jones is the microgeneration of people born from 1954 to 1965.

Generational labels have become cultural identifiers. These include Baby Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, Gen Z and Gen Alpha. And each of these generations is defined by its unique characteristics, personalities and experiences that set them apart from other generations.

But in-between these generational categories are "microgenerations", who straddle the generation before and after them. For example, "Xennial" is the microgeneration name for those who fall on the cusp of Gen X and Millennials.


And there is also a microgeneration between Baby Boomers and Gen X called Generation Jones, which is made up of people born from 1954 to 1965. But what exactly differentiates Gen Jones from the Boomers and Gen Xers that flank it?

- YouTube www.youtube.com

What is Generation Jones?

"Generation Jones" was coined by writer, television producer and social commentator Jonathan Pontell to describe the decade of Americans who grew up in the '60s and '70s. As Pontell wrote of Gen Jonesers in Politico:

"We fill the space between Woodstock and Lollapalooza, between the Paris student riots and the anti-globalisation protests, and between Dylan going electric and Nirvana going unplugged. Jonesers have a unique identity separate from Boomers and GenXers. An avalanche of attitudinal and behavioural data corroborates this distinction."

Pontell describes Jonesers as "practical idealists" who were "forged in the fires of social upheaval while too young to play a part." They are the younger siblings of the boomer civil rights and anti-war activists who grew up witnessing and being moved by the passion of those movements but were met with a fatigued culture by the time they themselves came of age. Sometimes, they're described as the cool older siblings of Gen X. Unlike their older boomer counterparts, most Jonesers were not raised by WWII veteran fathers and were too young to be drafted into Vietnam, leaving them in between on military experience.

How did Generation Jones get its name?

generation jones, gen jones, gen jones teen, generation jones teenager, what is generation jones A Generation Jones teenager poses in her room.Image via Wikmedia Commons

Gen Jones gets its name from the competitive "keeping up with the Joneses" spirit that spawned during their populous birth years, but also from the term "jonesin'," meaning an intense craving, that they coined—a drug reference but also a reflection of the yearning to make a difference that their "unrequited idealism" left them with. According to Pontell, their competitiveness and identity as a "generation aching to act" may make Jonesers particularly effective leaders:

"What makes us Jonesers also makes us uniquely positioned to bring about a new era in international affairs. Our practical idealism was created by witnessing the often unrealistic idealism of the 1960s. And we weren’t engaged in that era’s ideological battles; we were children playing with toys while boomers argued over issues. Our non-ideological pragmatism allows us to resolve intra-boomer skirmishes and to bridge that volatile Boomer-GenXer divide. We can lead."

@grownupdish

Are you Generation Jones? Definitive Guide to Generation Jones https://grownupdish.com/the-definitive-guide-to-generation-jones/ #greenscreen #generationjones #babyboomer #generationx #GenX #over50 #over60 #1970s #midlife #middleage #midlifewomen #grownupdish #over50tiktok #over60women #over60tiktok #over60club

However, generations aren't just calculated by birth year but by a person's cultural reality. Some on the cusp may find themselves identifying more with one generation than the other, such as being culturally more Gen X than boomer. And, of course, not everyone fits into whatever generality they happened to be born into, so stereotyping someone based on their birth year isn't a wise practice. Knowing about these microgenerational differences, however, can help us understand certain sociological realities better as well as help people feel like they have a "home" in the generational discourse.

As many Gen Jonesers have commented, it's nice to "find your people" when you haven't felt like you've fit into the generation you fall into by age. Perhaps in our fast-paced, ever-shifting, interconnected world where culture shifts so swiftly, we need to break generations into 10 year increments instead of 20 to 30 to give everyone a generation that better suits their sensibilities.

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

boss, angry boss, mad boss, benihaha chef, laptop

A boss is fed up with his employee's antics.

One of the most frequently debated topics in professional etiquette is which foods are appropriate to eat in the office. People often take offense when others cook smelly foods, such as fish or broccoli, in a shared microwave. It can also be rude to bring a bag of snacks into a meeting as a lot of folks don't want to hear chewing while they're trying to think.

When it comes to remote workers, people are even less sure about proper eating etiquette. Is it okay to eat a large meal during an all-hands meeting? One remote worker recently claimed they pushed those boundaries to the limit when their boss allegedly did something most employees would find rude: He scheduled meetings during lunchtime and showed zero interest in apologizing for it.


office, office kitchen, office fridge, workers, employees An office kitchen.via Canva/Photos

"I used to take my lunch break at the same time every day - 12 to 1. I don't eat breakfast (just coffee and lots of water), so my lunch is essential, and I can't just skip it," a Redditor wrote. "My calendar was blocked, but my boss (newly promoted, power-tripping) started scheduling meetings right in the middle of it."

At first, it wasn't a problem, but it became a habit. "The first couple of times, I let it slide," the employee continued. "Figured maybe it was urgent. But then it became a pattern. I pushed back and reminded him that it was during my break, and he said, 'Well, we all have to make sacrifices sometimes.'"

spaghetti, mean spaghetti, pasta, italian food, lunch An angry man eating spaghetti.via Canva/Photos

Sometimes? That would make sense if the boss only occasionally scheduled lunchtime meetings, but this was becoming a regular thing. So, the employee decided they wouldn't skip lunch and would make the meeting as uncomfortable as possible.

"Next meeting, I showed up with a full plate of spaghetti and meatballs. Had my camera on and mic unmuted, slurping and chewing, occasionally gave thumbs up while mid-bite," they wrote. "A few days later, it repeated, so I brought sticky wings. Last week on Thursday, it happened again, glad I still had my pizza."

"We all have to make sacrifices sometimes"

After the boss started noticing a trend, he spoke up: "Do you have to eat during the meeting?" The employee had the perfect response: "I smiled and said, 'We all have to make sacrifices sometimes.'" During the following week, the boss didn't schedule any lunch meetings.

The post went viral. After receiving countless awards from readers, the poster joked about new and inventive ways they could get back at their boss, including dressing up as a Benihana chef and performing an onion volcano, heating cheese mid-meeting with a fondue pot, and carving a massive tomahawk steak on camera.

The Redditor also claimed they purposely behaved obnoxiously during the meeting to further drive home their point. But where do people draw the line when it comes to eating during a remote meeting?

Kate Noel, head of People Ops at Morning Brew, said it's important to read the room:

"All Zoom meetings are not created equal," Noel wrote. "If it's with your closest teammates, it's probably nbd. But if you feel nervous about eating your sushi on camera, then you might want to wait until after the awkward goodbye waves at the end of your meeting. Not for nothing, you could probably get away with keeping your video off during a larger group meeting to eat food. But at your own risk, so choose your own adventure."

baby names, dog names, golden retriever, name shame, cvs, funny, funny tiktok, funny dog videos, names
@sarahwithscrubs/TikTok, used with permission

Honestly, most of us would have reacted this way.

It started like any ordinary pharmacy errand. A Michigan woman named Sarah was waiting at CVS to pick up a prescription for her “son.” When another woman waiting in line overheard the name of her “son,” she apparently couldn’t help but let out an unsolicited opinion.

“You’ll really name your son anything, huh?” the woman said with a sigh.


The name in question? Whiskey.

baby names, dog names, golden retriever, name shame, cvs, funny, funny tiktok, funny dog videos, names At least it wasn't Bubbles. Photo credit: Canva

Now, if you’re picturing a tiny human in a onesie named after your dad’s favorite Friday-night drink, and feeling a little baffled in the process, don’t worry. So was everyone else.

Except Whiskey isn’t a little boy. He’s a red golden retriever.

Yep. Sarah’s “son” is of the four-legged variety, currently undergoing cancer treatments and racking up a pharmacy bill that could rival a small country’s GDP. She and her husband get his prescriptions filled at their local CVS because (fun fact) many human and animal meds are the same, just at different doses.

baby names, dog names, golden retriever, name shame, cvs, funny, funny tiktok, funny dog videos, names You just know there's a person named Whiskey out there getting a kick out of this. media4.giphy.com

As Sarah explained to Newsweek, this strategy saves them a few bucks, but can certainly lead to some incredible misunderstandings.

In her TikTok video, which has now been watched over 3 million times, Sarah retold this CVS name-shaming incident, and viewers collectively lost it.

@sarahwithscrubs I should’ve thrown in I was picking up his cancer meds too lol 🤭😂 #fyp #foryoupage #storytime #dogs #smallcreator ♬ original sound - sarah renee

One commenter shared, “I was shaming you too until you said dog!” Another wrote, “I mean, Whiskey is a horrible name for a child 😂 But for a dog? Okay lol.”

However, a few folks came to Sarah’s defense. One person noted, “There are women named Brandi—what’s wrong with Whiskey?” Another admitted, “in my 49 years I didn't know CVS filled pet meds!"

It’s the kind of mix-up that reminds us how funny life can be when the human and animal worlds collide. Because let’s face it: Whiskey the dog? Adorable. Whiskey the toddler? Maybe… less so. It might be a mostly unspoken rule, but a rule nonetheless.

As for what became of that misunderstanding, Sarah shared that when the other woman called Whiskey a "horrible" name for a child to grow up with that could lead to getting bullied in school, Sarah quipped back with "Well, he's a dog. So I don't think so." Upon that realization, Sarah told Newsweek that she “apologized very nicely” once she learned that Whiskey was, in fact, a dog.

As Sarah put it, the stranger “just left in a hurry, probably to think about her actions later.”

Meanwhile, TikTok is still chuckling, and celebrating one very good boy with a name that fits him perfectly.

Moral of the story: some names are meant for baby humans, like Zach or Emma. Others are for the fur babies who greet you at the door with a wagging tail and oodles of love…like Whiskey. 🐾🥃

This article originally appeared last year

green eyes, funny story, viral video, humor, comedy
Photo credit: @margoinireland on Instagram

Did she get superpowers?

Going to the eye doctor can be a hassle and a pain. It's not just the routine issues and inconveniences that come along when making a doctor appointment, but sometimes the various devices being used to check your eyes' health feel invasive and uncomfortable. But at least at the end of the appointment, most of us don't look like we're turning into The Incredible Hulk. That wasn't the case for one Irish woman.

Photographer Margerita B. Wargola was just going in for a routine eye exam at the hospital but ended up leaving with her eyes a shocking, bright neon green.


At the doctor's office, the nurse practitioner was prepping Wargola for a test with a machine that Wargola had experienced before. Before the test started, Wargola presumed the nurse had dropped some saline into her eyes, as they were feeling dry. After she blinked, everything went yellow.

Wargola and the nurse initially panicked. Neither knew what was going on as Wargola suddenly had yellow vision and radioactive-looking green eyes. After the initial shock, both realized the issue: the nurse forgot to ask Wargola to remove her contact lenses before putting contrast drops in her eyes for the exam. Wargola and the nurse quickly removed the lenses from her eyes and washed them thoroughly with saline. Fortunately, Wargola's eyes were unharmed. Unfortunately, her contacts were permanently stained and she didn't bring a spare pair.

- YouTube youtube.com

Since she has poor vision, Wargola was forced to drive herself home after the eye exam wearing the neon-green contact lenses that make her look like a member of the Green Lantern Corps. She couldn't help but laugh at her predicament and recorded a video explaining it all on social media. Since then, her video has sparked a couple Reddit threads and collected a bunch of comments on Instagram:

“But the REAL question is: do you now have X-Ray vision?”

“You can just say you're a superhero.”

“I would make a few stops on the way home just to freak some people out!”

“I would have lived it up! Grab a coffee, do grocery shopping, walk around a shopping center.”

“This one would pair well with that girl who ate something with turmeric with her invisalign on and walked around Paris smiling at people with seemingly BRIGHT YELLOW TEETH.”

“I would save those for fancy special occasions! WOW!”

“Every time I'd stop I'd turn slowly and stare at the person in the car next to me.”

“Keep them. Tell people what to do. They’ll do your bidding.”

In a follow-up Instagram video, Wargola showed her followers that she was safe at home with normal eyes, showing that the damaged contact lenses were so stained that they turned the saline solution in her contacts case into a bright Gatorade yellow. She wasn't mad at the nurse and, in fact, plans on keeping the lenses to wear on St. Patrick's Day or some other special occasion.

While no harm was done and a good laugh was had, it's still best for doctors, nurses, and patients alike to double-check and ask or tell if contact lenses are being worn before each eye test. If not, there might be more than ultra-green eyes to worry about.

Netflix and chill, reddit, funny, millennials, millennial humor, tifu
Image via Canva

An image of an embarrassed woman interlaid with a picture of two people cuddling while watching Netflix.

For many, if not most of us, when someone uses the term “Netflix and chill,” we know it to be a euphemism for, well, not much TV watching.

And yet, not everyone knows that this phrase has sexual connotations, apparently. At least one 34-year-old female college professor recently admitted to not knowing. Too bad she had been using the phrase as one of her go-to “icebreakers” in class.


A teacher learns she’s been using “Netflix and chill” wrong

As she shared on Reddit, she would often list “Netflix and chill” as one of her favorite hobbies. Not only that, but whenever students mentioned how stressed they were, she would reiterate: “While it's important to study, it's also important to take time to relax and recharge, so I hope they are able to do something for themselves soon, like ‘Netflix and chill.’”

It wasn’t until she visited her husband for lunch at his work and struck up a conversation with two of his co-workers that she discovered her hefty misunderstanding.

“I'm currently on maternity leave and mentioned to his co-workers that I can't wait for my infant to be older so I can ‘Netflix and chill’ again instead of having to feed and change diapers,” she wrote.

When one of the coworkers had a “shocked look on his face,” the OP was “confused.” She couldn’t believe it when this person explained that it’s a “euphemism for hooking up.” And yet, when the other coworker, a 50-year-old female, said, "Oh he's right, even I know what that means!" there was really no denying it.

Photo credit: Canva


Well, understandably, this woman was “mortified” at having learned the truth and was “now terrified I'm going to be reported for sexual harassment because I guess I've been inadvertently telling my students I love to hook up and have been encouraging them to hook up, too??”

In her defense, it's true that “Netflix and chill” used to mean relaxing while streaming, but that was about 17 years ago. The context we are all familiar with has been around since 2015.


She also noted that she and her husband married young and therefore never spent much time on dating apps, which could help explain why she remained unaware. Plus, she lived at home and worked two jobs during her college years, which meant "Netflix and chill” was literally “Netflixing and chilling,” she quipped.

All in all, she chalked this up to being an “oblivious Millennial.” And by that, she meant a “Millennial who is clearly oblivious” to something “invented by Millennials and has been around for at least 10-15 years.”

Reddit's reactions

Down in the comments, people tried to ease her worries about the whole accidental harassment thing.

"They either thought you were adorably clueless, or just a very cool teacher. Don't sweat it."

“Either people figured she didn’t know and thought it was funny or just assumed they’re very open and sex positive. NBD either way.”

“Rate my professor: 10/10. She told me I can come over and netflix and chill anytime 🥵”

Others didn’t let her off so easily, especially when she surmised that her older coworkers also likely didn’t know what it meant.

“I was shocked when I opened the post and saw OP was 34. I expected her to be 64.”

“I am 38 and have known what it means since it’s been around. This definitely isn’t an age thing, this is a living under a rock thing lol”

“I’m an out of touch millennial but that’s been a saying for like a decade now. lol. You might be under a rock.”

Photo credit: Canva


Regardless, the OP has had a good sense of humor despite being mortified. She concluded her post by saying, “Anyone who has lived the past decade+ under a rock like me is welcome to come over to my place and literally chill and watch Netflix with me anytime! I'll supply the popcorn 🤣”

Listen, it’s bonkers when things like this happen, but they do happen. Is it embarrassing? Sure. But does it remind us that life is about laughing at ourselves? Also yes.