- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
American exceptionalism, especially lately.
We’re weird about foreskins for one
deleted by creator
Flag heilling
Not the weirdest, but I didn’t realize this until it was pointed out.
The fascination with work, and how one’s employment or career is tied to personal identity. It’s a basic conversation starter, “What do you do for work?” Not “What do you enjoy doing?” or “Do you have any hobbies?” or “Where do you go to relax?” Nope.
What to you do for work.
It’s a weird question that is tied up in judgement and classism. And it’s so normal here
Trevor Noah has a section about this in a recent standup. Something likei if you ask a European what they do they answer with hobbies, americans answer with their job title.
I’ve found this only to be true in white collar professions. Hanging out with blue collar people, your job rarely comes up, but it’s one of the first questions with white collar people.
I grew up blue collar and am still a tradesman. I technically live in the Midwest, but lots of Appalachian people. Of course my social circles include a vast swathe of socio-economic levels so you might still be right.
I’ll have to watch closer to see if there’s a pattern
I’d say your definitely correct when it comes to people with “low skill” or high turnover type jobs. If they work at dollar general or McDicks they don’t talk about work much. Also, there’s no such thing as a low skill job, and we all know who was essential and who could stay home for a few months
Why are you typing comments when you should be earning money for your boss?
My boss is a real asshole. I can’t stand him and he doesn’t pay me enough.
I’m self-employed
Have you tried sleeping with him for a raise?
Flags. Americans are obsessed with the American flag.
I was asked this while traveling in another country. I didn’t have a good answer. FWIW, I don’t own any clothing with any flags on them.
Wearing depictions if the flag is against flag code anyway. Not a legal standard, but if someone actually cared for real, they wouldn’t use it as decoration.
Code is for the government. The people should be free to celebrate the freedom it’s meant to represent.
That we dont want to be trailer trash, but a good 95 percent of us are.
The apparent obsession with money. Some people claim to be religious but it’s clear the Almighty Dollar is their God. I know we make jokes about needing a “profit motive”, but there is a grounding in reality. It’s truly bizarre, from an outside perspective, just what lengths and depths people will sink to in order to increase profit. I’m not saying this is an American Only thing, but it’s VERY apparent in the USA just how far people will go.
I stopped talking politics with my FIL when I realized money was his singular driving force. He really believes, and IDK where he got this, that capitalism is itself a perfect system, and that any regulation on it breaks the system. Basically laissez faire libertarianism, wrapped in a flag and wearing a cross. Considering it’s a well understood concept, in the rest of the world (and US history) that capitalism requires regulation to work safely, it’s maddening to argue anything when we can’t agree on basics.
All people with money = inherently good. All brown people = inherently bad. This is the driving socioeconomic philosophy among conservatives.
Milton Friedman is where he got it and it’s pretty common piece of propaganda pushed by wealthy interests.
I started listening to AM radio and Fox News (their stream) to understand them. These people arent even the worst strain of propaganda consumer. But they get it from one of the two schools of austrian economics.
But even morally bankrupt people still believe in the truth. Like no matter how capitalist someone is, the Epstein connection to Trump is not going away. The money itself is not proof that someone doesn’t diddle children
Mine is that every 20 years or so, America picks a country or region to decimate, colonize, pillage and take over. They treat the people in that country like refuse. Then 20 years later they move on to the next country. Throughout all this they moralize to you and police the world and try to tell other countries to stop their wars, while they enjoy the benefits of their own invasions.
We have a quota in america for weapons manufacturing. If noone needs weapons then make a new conflict. Its not super complicated but it is absurdly morally bankrupt.
that they have no culture
They do have culture: it’s poor taste.
And then get weirdly surprised and entitled about it when someone does do something about it.
Where I live almost everyone assumes you are a right wing Christian. They don’t even take into consideration that you’re not and if they figure out you aren’t they stop talking to you in most cases. I’ve never had anyone straight up call me an idiot but I’ve had good friends freeze up when they found out and then start avoiding me afterwards. You get looked at like a lizard in human skin.
To add to this, I’ve heard the talk that gets passed around before they found out that I wasnt. If you are a woman they will straught up call you a witch
I’m a passing trans guy, and where I live is like this.
It’s just fucked walking around and know that if they knew, I would essentially lose all humanity to them. It happened with my divorce lawyer, it happens with doctors. I’m like an alien hiding in the place I was born.
I’m like an alien hiding in the place I was born.
That’s so messed up. As a southerner: sorry. I would not, and I have a lot of family that wouldn’t either, though TBH they left Mississippi…
You’re not a southerner, quit lying. You’re from the northern hemisphere. Poser.
I’m from the south-north-north-eastern USA!
Hey we out here even in WV. Nobody needs to feel alone.
Please tell me this is the Midwest and not somewhere in Appalachia. Pa here and I’d be horrified
Christianity (and all religions imo) are a fucking stain on humanity, they bring so much more harm than good upon us.
…christians are so overwhelmingly evil that i constantly have to stop and remind myself that some tiny minority of all the crosses and flags i see brandished about may actually be fostered in good faith, lest i judge too soon…
That is so strange. Where i live if someone under the age of 70 tells you that they are actual christian, the reaction is usually: "wait what? Really now?
You live in a more honest place. It really is like this outside cities in large parts of USA.
As opposed to the rest of the world, where we simply never release a thing, at all.
World Champions in sports that only the US participates in. I am not a fan of football, both the “footy” version or the “NFL” but it’s always been odd to me that winners of the Super Bowl, or equivalent event, are often declared “World Champions” of their own league in an event exclusively hosted in the US.
for me it’s the whole “don’t tread on me” and gun culture rhetoric. Americans seem to be “don’t push me” but when they actually get pushed they’re all “uWu please more daddy” it’s odd.
Yes, that whole thing went from defending guns in schools to nothing burger in a matter of seconds.
Guns cannot defend you from Fox News.
I can explain this one. Growing up in America, you’re constantly told that you’re a patriot simply because you were born here—like just existing in the same country where Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington lived 250 years ago somehow makes you part of their legacy. It’s pushed on you so early and so hard that you don’t even question it. You just go to school, and the first thing you do is stand and pledge allegiance to the state—together, as a group. It’s ritualistic. It functions like a cult mechanism. That’s how it gets ingrained.
Most Americans do not have an understanding that they are being tread on.
And I’m proud to be and American where at least I know I’m freeeeee
I don’t think being patriotic is such a bad thing. It’s not unique to the US either.
But looking back so uncritically definitely is.
doesn’t explain the whole gun thing though. Like it’s the one country that seems wildly out of control from gun violence all because of that one thing regularly and seriously defended in that constitution of your’s all while never arriving to the exact reason it’s in the constitution in the first place…
Until now when that exact thing happens and then suddenly the entire constitution means fuck all and gets trashed and it’s like y’all collectively got quiet about them guns and the constitution.
Not to say I’m like let’s get all violent and blood thirsty, just saying this explicit logic sequence about guns and violence is what makes America extra weird.
It’s a myth that the second amendment was there to allow citizens to protect themselves from the government. Its actual original purpose was to allow for local militias so that we wouldn’t have to keep (and more importantly, pay for) a standing army.
The guiding rule is selfishness. You can hold opposing viewpoints at different points in time if all you care about is what feels best for yourself at that moment. Selfishness and greed and the two flaws I think america needs to work on most. Help others more, and dont take more than you need for yourself.
The loud mouthed, gun toting morons in this country are the ones that fell for Donald Trump
Gonna explain the modern view. Don’t know older eras, but can go.
First of all, on the list of things that we are taught in the US that “you’re constantly told that you’re a patriot simply because you were born here”, the Bill of Rights of the Constitution is treated as a sacred document. and like the Bible, it’s overquoted without much understanding. But most pertinent to your discussion is Amendment 2.
A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Yup, that’s all our constitution has to say about guns.
Understand, when we’re talking about the Bill of Rights, really everyone’s focus is Amendment 1, where all sides agree on it (at least for their own people and are convinced the other is trying to take it away), 3 hasn’t really come up, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 has been pushed and broken over the years… and 10 will come up thanks to our Civil War. But 2 can be the issue.
While there’s of course a massive mix in our country, there are two predominant sides, left and right, democrat and republican, liberal and conservative, blue and red… there are arguments that these are different labels but the way our countries politics have ran in the last couple decades those terms are completely interchangeable. And this divide is HEAVILY where the gun argument exists. The democrat side of the aisle has been wanting gun control, the school shootings being the discussion but so many other reasons, the Democrats run the gambit from a minority who says “Take all the guns, they’re unnecessary in today’s society” to a different minority being completely pro-gun (they’ve been less quiet over the years) and everywhere on the spectrum in between, but usually the party lands on gun control. The Republicans on the other hand run the spectrum of “NO gun control” to guns are sacred and burning one is like burning a Bible to a US flag. Now… the “NO gun control” is also a bit of a red herring because the Republicans are REALLY happy to pass gun control bills, especially when minorities have guns… I’ve always said it’s going to be a Republican who does the whole take their guns because some of the Republicans are getting to the mood of “Take the guns” because they’re in power… when a pro-gun democrat is ignored for a more anti-gun republican by the single issue voters when it comes to guns because they’ll just parrot “Gun grabbing Democrat.” I live in a red state where this sort of thing happened. (Jesus… how many footnotes I have to put in, like here… our politics are ran by single issue voters too, that’s important). When it was said up top where “Americans seem to be “don’t push me” but when they actually get pushed they’re all “uWu please more daddy” it’s odd.” our loudest bunch is the ultra-far right which is the loudest about their gun rights, but have to circle the square that they also are the biggest bootlickers pro-police, pro-military etc while the group that’s mostly against guns are the the ones also against the expansion of enforcement power of the government. I can get into some tin-foil hat theories but I think it’s more “It’s not a bug, it’s a feature” as those that worship the guns also fetishize the military and just want to be them, just without the restraint.
So now we’ve got the political divide when it comes to guns. Now lets get into organizations. The NRA, National Rifle Association. Originally in 1871 they were a club that was about improving marksmanship, firearm safety, and competency as well as hunting and conservation. But they are now pretty much a lobbying group for “gun rights”, they oppose any gun legislation (unless minorities are going to be affected, then they are suspiciously quiet), this really started in the 70s where they started aligning with the Conservatives where most Republicans were at the time and has only further solidified there with the NRA being a mouthpiece of the Republicans for decades. It’s to a point where if a Republican wants elected in the Midwest or the South they need the NRA seal of approval. And this organization is ALL ABOUT heavy advertising, which is free political press. Now this following part is a guess but adding on we had the Citizens United (I can go on pages long rants about this group, good to know that their leader took a hiatus in 2016 to be Trumps campaign manager for election) decision in 2010 where the group sued the FEC at the supreme court saying that corporations are people thus they couldn’t be prevented making expenditures in federal elections which infringe on their 1st amendment rights and won allowing companies to donate to political campaigns. Some of our biggest companies are the military industrial complex and it’s definitely in their interests for the open doors to guns so they can be sold to the public.
So you can now see that it’s a weird mixture of political divide and being pushed further by the politics and economics of the country, lets get into the history and the revisionist history that’s known in the US. The being a “patriot” in the US, it is hammered in our heads about the Revolutionary War that we fought back the British and it’s super important that we keep ready to keep from another totalitarian government from taking control (you don’t need to point it out, I am well aware of the irony.) The “Don’t Tread on Me” Gadsden flag is a recall from the OG Revolutionary War (and pretty much flown by one side of the political aisle, I’ll let you guess which one, and I’ll give you a hint, it’s the one that keeps using patriotic jingoism). This is adding with the Bill of Rights being sacred, that our Revolutionary War is taught as almost a mythical struggle against good and evil. I’d honestly love to see how other countries teach their history compared to the US. Now my views are going to be colored because I was raised in the South, and since our education isn’t standardized across the country federally that can be VERY important (There is some standardization, but it’s corporate based… Texas is the largest buyer of schoolbooks so they can bully the schoolbook company to leaving out some of the things that paint them in a bad light.)
I’ve brought up the South a few times… and here we go and my constant statement that we’re still in the middle of our Civil War from 160 years ago. Our Civil War was the South deciding to secede from the US and the followup to that. I’m going to lay it out, the Civil War WAS about slavery and yes that is a controversial statement to say this day and age, as people will say it’s about “States Right” (10th amendment) but that’s part of the “Lost Cause Myth” which propagates that slavery wasn’t important and was already on its way out but it was the abolitionists pushing too quickly, that it was about the states rights that it wasn’t the federal governments place to step in, that the slaves were happy and cheerful in their position, that the soldiers were chivalric and not traitors as secession was granted by the constitution, and that the south actually wasn’t defeated because they were the better at military and had the better generals and it was simply because the North outnumbered them. This seems like an aside, but read all of those and see how that is the sort that also would cling to their guns, hell they like to try to use the revolutionary war as a mirror… and this isn’t some little tiny myth… if you live in the south the (revisionist) confederate flag is flown all over in the south, infested in the north, and even flown over some state houses. It is not unusual to hear “The South will rise again!” ANYWHO: Lost Cause Myth… South lost, if being outnumbered was their failure then it was bad strategy. Slaves weren’t happy and anyone who believes that are fucking idiots. This wasn’t a war of northern aggression: The south shot first because Lincoln when elected much to their being upset wouldn’t give them ALL the US military bases even when he was willing to let the South otherwise govern itself. The South had made a purpose of using the federal government to bully abolitionist states to follow their laws (see fugitive slave acts). And on the “Slavery isn’t important” and “States rights” arguments, lets take a look at the CSA Constitution. Article I Sec. 8 (4) “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.” and Article IV Sec. 2 (1) “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.” (3) “The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.” … Yea… slavery was totally on the way out and states were allowed to govern themselves. Europe had Nazis, we have Confederates… and we’ve done a piss poor job of getting rid of them. And while the confederates were Democrat, they moved to the Republicans with the signing of the Civil Rights Act.
I hit the limit in that post but you’ll see that one political party has taken the single issue voter response on guns and got everyone on their side. And this is from NRA’s advertising to the guy who hunted all his life and owns one old beat up rifle “They’ll take your guns away!” to the Neo-confederates wanting to rebel against the government has created a cult that worships the gun above all else.
So where are the anti-gun crowd on it? I used to be gun control as one of my biggest political points, but I viewed the Sandy Hook shooting as our Crossing the Rubicon, and I think many who align in my thought process did the same. When one side hammered so hard “We can’t bring politics into tragedy!” and enough of the country backed them that nothing meaningful was passed, that said as a nation we are willing to sacrifice the blood of children to oil the sacred artifact that is the gun. So honestly at this point, why keep fighting that fight? It’s probably no surprise that the political side that has some serious problems with it also is the group that has the majority of those without children. I had to keep my mouth shut with our current administration around a pro-gun leftist friend of mine who spouted the same “We gotta use the guns to resist a tyrannical government” because I knew the vast majority of the pro-gun crowd would lockstep with the tyranny… and was shocked when apparently we swapped sides on the gun debate because he said “Fucking take them all for all I care.” when he realized that there would be no resisting a tyrannical government while I’m not going to push for any further on gun restrictions, because when they pass, they won’t be well thought out protective ones, but ones to suppress one side while giving the other side full power.
As I said, guns cannot protect one from Fox News.
In other words, we are taught, from childhood, to resist classic tyranny, like a British King, or external propaganda like Nazism. That’s gun culture: people ready to tell foreign soldiers stepping foot on their home exactly how they feel, from the end of a barrel. A sort of ‘people’s militia’ is the fantasy, and part of our history.
It’s so engrained that I think it blinds people to internal propaganda, and surpresses critical thinking. And that was kinda OK for awhile, but now it’s gotten out of hand and, well…
ah got you. so it’s like “you’re supposed to behave this way” it’s ingrained in you as a child that this is the proper thing to do but like most kids you just have no idea why it is and you just go along with it. like being dragged to church as a kid.
See my reply below.
But in short, I think its not so much a cult as an outddated fantasy. We’re taught to resist external invasions as a people’s militia; that’s what the Founding Fathers mean to people, kicking out foreign kings. It’s what the pledge allegiance meant to me, along with valuing our own diverse ideals and disunity.
…Not to resist internal propaganda.
Hence, that philosophy is easy to exploit internally. On the flip side, it doesn’t work when we have to look at ourselves so critically. The patriotism itself isn’t a cult, but it’s fertile ground to get one rolling when there are enemies to point to.
- Gun culture
- Making houses out of wood. To me, someone from a country where houses are made of brick, this is like living in a shed. Also, the USA is the hotspot of tornadoes, so it makes even less sense
- One of the richest countries in the world, and universal healthcare isn’t a thing
Brick houses aren’t going to survive a tornado any better than wood ones. Hell, the really big ones will pull the top off of storm shelters. Wood houses are used because they’re cheaper to build. So it’s easier to rebuild after a disaster.
Houses of woods aren’t really bad or the problem, but houses of wood that are held together by osb and cardboard is odd.
Traditional Dutch houses (the ones on the canals) are wooden frames with a brick facade. The brick is fastened to the wooden beams with elaborate wrought iron wall anchors.
Most new construction is reinforced concrete, but those suckers have been standing for 400 years.
Making houses out of wood.
This is fine. Lumber was historically plentiful in North America, and lumber houses last just as long as stone or brick.
Lumber has several advantages over stone/concrete/brick:
- Less CO2 impact from construction activities. Concrete production is a huge contributor to atmospheric CO2.
- Greater sustainability in general. Concrete is approaching a global sand shortage, because most sand in the world doesn’t have the right qualities to be included in concrete.
- Better energy efficiency and insulation properties. Brick homes need double walls in order to compete with the insulation properties of a wood framed house that naturally has voids that can be filled with insulation.
- Better resilience against seismic events and vibrations (including nearby construction). The west coast has frequent earthquakes, and complying with seismic building code with stone/masonry requires it to be reinforced with steel. The state of Utah, where trees and lumber are not as plentiful as most other parts of North America, and where seismic activity happens, has been replacing unreinforced masonry for 50+ years now.
- Easier repair. If a concrete foundation cracks, that’s easier to contain and mitigate in a wood-framed house than a building with load-bearing concrete or masonry.
Some Northern European and North American builders are developing large scale timber buildings, including timber skyscrapers. The structural engineers and safety engineers have mostly figured out how to engineer those buildings to be safe against fire and tornadoes.
It’s not inherently better or worse. It’s just different.
You should know that this is the most batshit insane, america-centric, absolutely wrong thing I’ve ever seen someone pull off in a context like this.
and lumber houses last just as long as stone or brick.
Just because you say it like it’s true doesn’t mean it’s true! That must be hard for you to understand, though. Do you think other countries are just casting their houses wholesale out of concrete? I love this way you see the world, it’s super simple and avoids learning anything useful.
Is there any good reason to be this vile to a stranger?
It’s not, the reason we built with stone here is that trees were historically rare as a building material. Secondly, a concrete structure needs more quality controls, and bad concrete is less durable than wood. Nobody builds with stone and bricks are just used for non structural walls.
You’re commenting from a .nl instance and aren’t aware of the 400+ year old timber buildings in the Netherlands, or the fact that there’s a current project to build the tallest timber skyscraper in the world in Eindhoven?
A brick home wouldn’t withstand a tornado either. Like if a tree hits a brick house it would do significant damage to the house. And most brick houses still have a timber roof under the roof tiles so even a small tornado could lift the roof off the house.
Here is a brick house hit by a small tornado in England
Reinforced concrete is a much better material for a hurricane and tornado resistant building. Also shape of the house is important. A dome would be the best.
A wood-framed house isn’t necessarily weaker than a brick house.
Wood is pliable and doesn’t suddenly crumble and collapse when it’s stressed. And it weighs WAY less when it does fail.
If you’re in a tornado or earthquake, would you rather be trapped beneath 120 pounds of sheetrock, insulation, and shingles or a 2 tons of broken, jagged rock?
I’ve heard ICF (insulated concrete foam) construction is pretty durable.
Living here, I will tell you that the insistence on building houses in a neo-colonial style in tornado alley, hurricane prone areas, or in a middle of a yearly flood plane, baffles me. We should have completely different architectural styles adpated to withstand the elements at this point. You know, what housing is supposed to be for in the first place? /rant
As always it comes down to $$$.
I live in Florida, our building codes didn’t tighten up until hurricanes cost everyone everything, and now Miami Dade in particular has some of the strictest building code in the US.
Well, that’s at least some improvement. Still, I hate that situation for you guys - nobody should have their life swept away like that.
Yeah, as I live in a very geologically active area, I’d rather not be crushed by 3 tons of brick falling in on me from the slightest earthquake. I’ll take my wobbly wooden house.
1 ton of tree feels a lot like 3 tons of brick.
Next week on Mythbusters, we crush Jamie with tons of various materials. You won’t want to miss it!