They glorify soldiers way too much and teachers way too little
Between the two there is a big difference:
One is a profession that can be a particularly dangerous way of life. Orders from above put you into place far from support, with limited resources, often in contact with hostiles on a daily basis. You’re often left to fend for yourself with only what you have on you against overwhelming odds. Command structures often pit you against your peers in petty internal politics around rank. The pay isn’t great, and those that stick with it for the long haul to make a lifetime of it often leave scared and mentally injured. It can be a thankless job in putting your life and health on the line to achieve the overall goal.
The other profession usually involves wearing a uniform and enforcing USA’s geopolitical interests in other countries.
U got me in the first half not gonna lie
Your comment made read the other comment.
Worth it.
Ah, the old
RedditLemmy switcharooIt was good but I saw it coming right away lol.
A family friend of ours just quit his highschool teaching job and is moving his family because he was threatened with a gun in his classroom. The student was expelled, but not arrested and knows where he lives.
I fucking hate it here. Guns need to go.
While travelling in the states, I was so perplexed to see that in some car parks where you’d expect to see disabled parking that there were parking spots for veterans.
id argue that that’s not true but my roommate and his friend made me watch 30+ minutes of commentated (by my friends) WW2 footage. i had to be like “hey man with all due respect i get the appeal I think but im not really interested in the glorification of something this horrific im sorry.” they were understanding but that level of interest in something so bleek was crazy.
also they were using WW2 japenese slurs and saying id walk up to that if i were there. and im like NO THE FUCK YOU WOULDNT you wouldnt even make it out of the armored car that took you there bud. people are not as badass as they think they are and soldiers arent badass they just want to see their families again we dont have to cheer them on like the opposing side doesnt also just wanna go home to their families.
ugh
Soldiers and patriotism…
Sticker price isn’t the price you pay at the till. Why? Why do you do that.
Massive gaps between the walls and doors of public lavatory cubicles. This is not some mystical, advanced technology. Get it together.
We do that because our country is founded on the “right” for moneymakers to put as much onto the customer as they can get away with. Hence things like tipping culture.
No offense but how thick do you have to be to make a door that is put in place solely to shield you from other humans, have a massive gap?
It seriously boggles my mind.
It’s not about doing it right for most. It’s about saving every dime you can. There are some that properly enclose stalls, like a nationally known Magic card seller in my locale.
They deliberately do that in some public toilets to discourage people from hooking up in there.
I don’t understand the question O:
Why
Oh, that. Because nobody gives a fuck about anybody’s rights in this country unless that person has a reasonable ability to sue.
What am I looking at here?
I think the toilet wall thing is because we have an expectation that every public building must have public toilets available. Places don’t want you to fuck or shoot up in the bathrooms, so they make them un-private so you hurry the hell up and leave. It’s a bit of hostile architecture, like making park benches that you can’t lie down on to keep people from trying to sleep on them. Make the “undesirables” uncomfortable enough and maybe they’ll go be undesirable somewhere else. Meanwhile it’s just a little bit less nice for everyone else as well.
This is a thoughtful reply. I will just say that the UK also has public toilets all over the place, and a desire for people to not screw & get high in the cubicles. Ditto many other countries. But I’ve never been anywhere else with this door gap problem, where no-one gets privacy.
I did once use a UK bathroom in a supermarket where the lighting was all blue, which makes it hard to find a vein to inject. But the doors still closed properly.
American here. I like your response and the one you responded to. Thanks for this insight. ^^
Pleasant interaction ^ Thank you.
I’m still not sure why there’s a regional difference, my guess is that it’s a quirk of history. We’re more used to it in the US, and there are benefits for the owners of the public toilets, so they don’t change.
How did we get so used to it? I’m no toilet historian but it could be a (horrible, evil) company had a near monopoly on stall design during a formative part of our architectural history. Could just be the newness and utilitarianism of a lot of American architecture in general. We kind of sprung up overnight and so sometimes bad ideas got caught up in that wave of “progress” and became the norm due to being in the right place at the right time, and not really because they were good ideas or ideas that worked. Tipping culture, tax added at the till, and other weird Americanisms could all have similar root causes! Once you’ve gone down the route of something pro-business and anti-consumer, and gotten most people to accept it as normal, there’s no going back in a capitalist society.
I’ve seen this conversation many times on Reddit, and from what people say I assume there is a regional thing going on on. I’m from a part of the US where toilet stalls do not have massive gaps. There is a big gap at the bottom but too low for anyone to be seeing under unless they are crawling on the floor. Gaps along the sides are quite narrow. 1 cm at most, and nothing anyone is going to be seeing you through unless they are some kind of freak putting their eye right up to it. These stalls are prefab panels you can easily put into a room. The gaps mean ventilation for the room takes care the stalls too.
I assume stalls started this way and became normalized, and in some parts of the country they’ve gotten sloppier, and sloppier, and normalized these huge gaps I hear people describe but never see.
This might be my bias, but I assume these are the places where everything is a suburban stripmall wasteland, where there are no sidewalks, and where it seems to me the whole environment is increasingly dehumanized.
Thank you for your comment. I can’t speak for the entire world, but in the UK a 1 cm" gap in the door of a public toilet would be massive and unacceptable. It’s not enough that someone can only see into a stall through a gap in the door if they are “right up to it”; they should not be able to see in at all. Public toilets in other countries have doors with gaps you can’t leer through at all.
Re. the “gaps meaning ventilation”, surely the “big gap at the bottom” and the fact that the whole top is open will be contributing more to ventilation?
You say you think this might be a regional thing in the US. Okay, could be. I have personally encountered this issue in Washington, California, North Carolina, DC, Massachusetts, Georgia, Texas, Oregon, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Maryland.
I can understand that to someone not used to this, any gap at all might be troubling and one might tend to exaggerate it as “massive”.
However note that these walls are fairly thick which narrows any visibility angles considerably. So to really see someone through the gap you would have to be at exactly the right angle and looking straight at them. Sitting on the toilet in one of these you can see some really narrow strip of the sinks area which also reflects the areas in which someone would have to be and looking straight at you to see you. People at the sink area have their back to you. People walking past them to another stall, are not looking to the side.
I’m not trying to convince you that they are ideal, or that your should like them, just that when the gaps are pretty narrow it is not as big a deal as you might think to get used to.
Again this is assuming these gaps are pretty narrow. I get the impression from what some Americans have said in other discussion that in some places they are quite a bit wider than I am used to, and what I said above may no longer apply.
Oh, I absolutely believe that people in America can accept it’s “not as big a deal as you might think”.
This is a thread about things about America that make no sense. So: I don’t understand why America, seemingly uniquely, accepts this as “not a big deal”.
It’s weird. Land of the free, home of the public toilets strangers can see inside. So odd.
The US doesn’t have a VAT, but a sales tax on final sale of a good. Not only that, but states, counties, and cities can issue their own sales tax on sales within their borders. There are also cases where sales tax isn’t charged at the register. In the end, it is easier for companies to just charge the tax at the end, so they do.
That is a nonsensical excuse. If they can calculate the price at the checkout then they can calculate it when they are putting up the price tags.
Many cities and counties often put a SPLOST (Special Purpose Local Option Tax) on the ballot. Usually for roads or schools, usually voted for, usually a penny. They are for a limited time, then they may expire or be put on the ballot again. If they expire, then every price tag for every item, in every store is now wrong. And if both city and county expire at different times, you could get a nightmare of changes.
Easier to change the software at checkout for the changes rather than every price tag.
It’s not that it’s easier it’s that it allows the companies to gouge you. If the store said the bottle of coke was 2.15 instead of 1.99 you might realize that it’s not a good price for acidic sugar water and pick something else. Like the free water out of the faucet. This also means public water would be higher quality because people would actually use it and demand cleaner water.
Two party system. They can’t possibly represent everyone’s interests. Feels more like religion to me .
They don’t represent anyone’s interests except their own.
And those who lobby them and/or help them get reelected.
Two party system is great for polarizing the society.
More precisely: The reason for the two party system: FPTP voting. The Brits do the same shit, and have the same problems.
The way it feels now (more cult-like than political and representing the populace) automatically and unavoidably stems from this FPTP issue. It automatically reduces the whole field to a reduced number of options, and while each reduction step takes longer than the last, this will ultimativley lead to a one-party state. It’s not a question of IF, it’s a question of WHEN and the REP program for 2025 to basically turn the government upside down to get unbeatable is trying to achieve this very single party state.
We do do the same and we do have the same problems, but it’s not so bad. We have at least 4 parties in parliament who have a voice and a number of others who are at least represented. It’s not good, but you have it worse
Two parties that are, if I’m not mistaken, the Right and the Rightest.
Didn’t the USA see any leftist ideology as radical?
The Cold War did some terrible things to our ideology.
They openly call Democrats radical lefties nowadays
It’s an inevitable conclusion of our winner take all voting system. “The man with the most votes wins.” If 4 candidates run, and they get 22% 22% 16% and 40% of the vote, the man with 40% of the vote wins the race, and 60% of the population didn’t get the candidate they voted for.
Now imagine you’ve got a red, orange, green and blue party. Orange voters get together and decide "You know, the Red party’s platform is pretty similar to ours, what if we didn’t run a candidate next time and instead encouraged our voters to vote for the Red candidate instead? The blue candidate won with 40% of the vote, but our two parties put together would have 44%.
In the next election with three candidates, the red candidate wins 44% to 40%, prompting a similar conversation at the Green party headquarters. Soon enough there are two parties.
We’re one of if not the oldest representative democracy in the world today; our constitution is 250 years old, there’s some old bugs still in the code base.
Jokes on you, in the end they both represent the same interests
It’s like a restaurant with a single dish and you can only chose a side. One’s xenophobia with a sprinkle of batshit crazy, the other’s utter impotence.
The two party system isn’t really codified in law, it’s just kind of a side-effect of the way we vote and the way government is organized. Due to those two things, it’s hard to change.
Basically because we were early adopters to modern republic systems. We tried something new because parliament was a bit too kingy for our tastes. But due to its simplicity it became really easy for two parties to wipe the floor with everyone else. And basically the only times they’ve changed was at the start and again shortly before our civil war. Neither party has ever had good reason to change the system, which would require massive agreement to change our constitution. So nobody does.
For example, politically I’m a syndicalist, but the democrats are pro union, pro environment, pro woman, and pro lgbt, all of which with a big asterisk but still I consistently vote for them because the greens didn’t win with Nader so they’re definitely going to lose now. So I dutifully vote Democrat because the only other party that has a chance is the republicans and they hate me and everything I believe in.
If we could do it again we’d do it better but in our defense we didn’t really have anyone to model off of
American here. Hate it, hate it, hate it.
As an American, I find it amazing that countries can have more than two active parties but also have a plurality voting system.
First Past the Post voting makes it more likely: https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo?si=X-8oz1K6iYxKhBeB
Tipping
Also, losing their shit over nudity
Puritans for the latter.
Bribery / slavery for the former.
We have tipping in Europe, but that’s mostly only done if you have a very good experience, not because you are expected to. Just pay your employees.
The whole Guns thing
Keeping your gun accessible when driving your car. Needing or wanting to open carry when you go shopping. Needing to pose with your family all holding powerful guns for a Christmas photo. I don’t get it.
Most of America doesn’t do it, just the people who are afraid of violence - which also happens to the same people who would quickly resort to violence. At this point, seeing a person wearing a gun is the same as seeing warning colors on other species like insects. If you see it, turn and go the other way. There is literally nothing worth the inconvenience of dealing with those people. (And hospitals don’t allow open carry so matters of life and death can be attend to without worry.)
A modern analog I like is to high grade digital encryption.
Terrorists and criminals use it, and governments want to ban it. But that doesn’t actually mean it should be banned, or that people who oppose a ban are terrorists or criminals.
Totally, except regulating encryption makes much more sense because of al those encryption-violence deaths that happen daily in the US. All those kids with easy access to encryption going to school and encrypting their classmates, the policemen not intervening because they are afraid to get encrypted by the kids armed with military grade AES-512 routines.
It is a modern analog, but with its limits - all this stuff doesn’t happen in countries where encryption is much more regulated and you can’t buy encryption routines in malls.
Your comment comes off as shallow and dismissive. I’d be happy to discuss this further, but not under those conditions.
I thought @draghetta made a good point in way that wasn’t particularly shallow or dismissive. Not trying to stir hostility here, just throwing in my 2 currency subunits.
To clarify, I disagree because you’re both missing my point, which is to explain and help people understand, and not an argument put forward in justification of anything.
Responding to an attempt to help bridge a gap of understanding by sarcastically dismissing any value in the analogy without even attempting to understand why it’s being offered is, to me, a dismissive and shallow thing to do.
I disagree.
What a shallow and dismissive thing to say
deleted by creator
What would you suggest?
That’s not a great analogy though… you would have to add that, even though most people use it responsibly, banning digital encryption would cause a very dramatic reduction in harm caused by the people that don’t use it responsibly.
Furthermore digital encryption actually serves an inherent purpose so banning it would also cause some harm to society simultaneously. On the other hand, civilian gun ownership serves no inherent purpose so society wouldn’t be harmed by banning it, and we would only lose the risk.
But but but what if they get fascists in power! What if a bunch of goons attempt a coup!
Yeah, but it’s way harder to kill someone accidentally (or in a fit of rage) with high grade digital encryption than with a firearm.
Guns are the only reliable way to deal with tyrants. And while its not everytime, look at what happens to disarmed populations usually.
Also gun control started as and still is racist.
You had a tyrant that tried to overthrow a legitimate election through violence.
Where were all gun nuts then? Those who weren’t attempting said coup, that is. Doesn’t sound reliable to me.
As for what happens to disarmed populations, most of Europe has gun control laws that would make any American have a heart attack, and yet here we are, no dictators to be seen up to GMT+3. Do say, what is it that happens to disarmed populations? What is happening to us that I somehow didn’t notice?
And gun control being racist… I’m sorry, what? This right here, this is the thing I’ll never understand about Americans. Everything is racist. You can’t talk about anything, somebody will play the “racist” card before you can get any deeper than slogans. Absolutely every single thing turns out to be a race issue. Sure, you guys had very big issues with racism until very recently (learning about sundown towns for me was a huge WTF moment) and it’s very hard to deal with a past so ugly - but still, maybe not everything is about race.
In America, gun control started as a way to disarm black people. Worked out well when the Klan wanted to lynch someone. Thats what was racist about it.
Sounds like the usual American retcon… you have a race obsession now so everything all the time was about race. A bit like Marx, who was obsessed with class struggle so literally every single event in history was actually a class struggle.
Also if you search online you’ll find plenty of articles they say they gun control is perceived as a racial issue, because gun control damages the rights of whites - with similarly flimsy arguments and mental gymnastics.
It’s almost as if it’s all bullshit.
Then why did the NRA start to get more “senesable gun control and not all gun owners are trustworthy” after the black panthers started to carry guns in the open
deleted by creator
King George is the funny answer.
The Taliban insurgency is a much more recent one.
The viet cong fought the USA and won.
The IRA fought well.
I can keep going, but its easier to just link a wiki page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions
That rascally rabbit isn’t a tyrant just because he keeps tricking you. I know you’re traumatized but he doesn’t actually have power over you. It’s all in your head.
I don’t know about the racism thing, but I doubt it. As far as the other thing, it doesn’t have to be a choice between no guns or no restrictions. In the UK we have a ban on handguns and some hoops you have to jump through to own a rifle. Nothing too onerous I believe (though I’ve never tried to own a gun.)
I’m not afraid of our government becoming tyrannical. If it did, though, and guns are really the only reliable way to deal with them (I’m not convinced but anyway) then we still have plenty going around.
If youre in the UK, what did the IRA use to fight the British in the Troubles?
The ones that won, they used diplomacy. The armed conflict only ruined and made peoples lives miserable. Here’s a doc you can listen to first hand accounts from members of the IRA. https://www.pbs.org/show/once-upon-time-northern-ireland/
Not disagreeing with you, but - you’ll have to admit, it’s a lot easier to have diplomatic talks when your side has a credible threat behind it. Do you think the Brits would have listened if the IRA had just done peaceful sit-ins?
Bombs mostly and they were always illegal.
What about it? Going to go bang, explosions are fun. Shooting people bad. What else did you want to know?
-signed Bleeding heart lefty with a gun
American lefty, which means you’d be at best centre right in any country with a healthcare system.
Why do you say that?
Oh I didn’t mean you specifically, it’s just a general comment on how policies of the European centre right parties are labelled in the American media. The Overton window is shifted to the left in Europe.
I was surprised to find out that abortion pre Rove versus Wade decision in the United States abortion was much more accessible than it was in the European Union.
Generally shifted to the left the overton window but not always.
For example, abortion.
Fair point.
I’m not familiar with RvW, but I’d suspect that in Europe it’s largely member state competency, and the more religious societies might have stricter rules. I know Poland is very prohibitive, and so was Ireland until very recently when a highly publicised human tragedy turned people against the rigid rules of the Church.
The short version is that USA was more left than all EU members states on abortion -
Sadly that WAS true. However I live in California and it still is true.
Left here in California AKA me is actually left for the European Union too. That’s why your original comment struck me as weird it’s because for me and my state which is bigger than many European countries in both size and economic might is as left as the European Union.
I do not believe the overton window shift applies to California only the USA
At-will employment makes no sense to me. You go to work every day knowing you could be fired without any possibility of taking the time to find another job. It would drive me crazy.
Oh it’s terrifying.
You should not compare that to employment as it is known in other countries.
Rather compare it to slavery. Doesn’t it look better now? ;-)
The flip side is we can quit at anytime.
Yeah, that really doesn’t make up for it.
I mean, I’ll take the months notice period and knowing I get redundancy if my job goes over being able to quit a bit faster.
So like mid-shift or are there any limits to this?
I quit by showing up 3 hours early and sent an eff you I’m out email. Dropped my badge on my desk and walked out without talking to anyone.
No. You just tell someone above you that you quit, and then leave.
You could walk out without telling anyone, but that’s rare. Depends on how shitty the job is.
Depending on your contract, you can absolutely just leave mid shift with no repercussions. Even if you breach your contract, the company will have to pursue legal action to claim any damages, which is costly.
Nope. I literally walked into work, dropped off my badge, said I quit and never looked back. HR called and I let it go to voicemail. They wanted to confirm my mailing address. A few weeks later I got my last paycheck. I left that company to change fields and it has never come up as an issue in subsequent roles. Quitting without notice is a fantastic perk that almost no one will be able to use. The key is to burn out early so looking for the next job is just around the corner.
I’m sorry I don’t get why this is a perk.
In here we have mandatory notice up to three months depending on tenure. It’s perfectly normal for new employers to have to wait the notice period when hiring a new person. Mind you, that’s 3 more guaranteed pay checks after you quit.
If you want to leave early you can negotiate a shorter notice, which i personally have never seen refused - normally people don’t want to keep leavers around so they’ll agree to a couple of weeks for handovers and then happily send you away with your (mandatory, tenure based) severance bonus.
If your old employer is petty and wants to keep you around for the whole notice you can just stop caring and carry on with the bare minimum. What are they going to do, fire you? Unless you’re causing them serious damage in that time they can’t do anything about it. That is also why employers tend to be very happy when you try to negotiate a short notice period.
I can understand how satisfying it must be to show up, slam your badge on somebody’s desk and say “fuck you I quit” - but other than those two seconds of joy I don’t see any other benefits.
There’s no negotiating anything with at will employment. You just leave if you want to leave.
You can negotiate if you want to. Or you can say fuck off and just get another job somewhere else. That’s the freedom of it. You’re not locked into any type of contact.
Yeah but I don’t understand how that’s better. Your employer has to agree to keep you around longer rather than the other way around, feels much worse for financial well-being. But even if it was the same, there’s no way that’s worth having zero notice firing without just cause.
It feels a bit like cope ngl- like yeah I’m doing chemo I can’t eat anything but flavourless meal replacements but look I’ve never been slimmer! That’s a remarkable perk!
I don’t get it either. Ignoring the inherent power imbalance between a single worker and an employer, good luck getting Gardening Leave in an at-will workplace.
I mean, I don’t live in an at-will state and I can quit at any time too.
So you live in Montana?
… because that’s the only one.
I guess that also makes it somewhat easier to get hired though? You can give your employees a chance without thinking too much about it, and if they suck just fire them.
For the most part, in my experience, don’t be a fuck up and you won’t get fired. Every company I’ve ever worked for has had very strict rules about firing people, It can take months for someone to get fired for anything short of violence, theft, or sexual harassment.
Thanks for the answer. It’s clearer now.
Some companies having strict rules isn’t a stand-in for decent workers protections.
Employers don’t have protections from employees flaking out either. It goes both ways.
Yeah, there’s quite a power imbalance there …
Only if you’re easily replaceable.
No, then there’s still a power imbalance, only slightly less egregious.
This is true. No idea why you’re being downvoted. There are tons of protections in place for workers in at-will states.
Nope. You can just get laid off for “no reason.”
No you can’t.
Labor laws are a very real thing.Yes, that’s the entire point of “at-will” employment.
There are protected classes, but “for no reason” is quite legal in most states, which is the terrible reality. US labor laws suck.
That depends on where you’re working. If you’re working for a company in an industry that tends to lay people off at certain times, then yeah you’re probably to be laid off in the future. Most companies aren’t like that though.
They will say of themselves as being Irish/Italian/other-european-nationality because their great-grandfather or great-grandmother came from there.
Okay let’s play a game. Let’s pretend you’re Italian, you said Italian, we’ll go with that. You speak Italian, you’re used to traditional Italian food, you believe in traditional Italian values. Things are done a certain way in Italy, and you’re used to it that way. Then one day, for whatever reason be it economic prospects, famine, war, whatever, you decide to leave Italy forever and board a ship bound for America. New Life in the New World and all that jazz.
What do you do when you step off the boat at Ellis Island? Do you:
A. Continue to speak your native language at least at home, become part of a community of fellow Italian emigrants, continue to cook and eat your traditional dishes…as best as you can with the ingredients available in this new hemisphere at any rate, do things the way you’re used to doing them, retaining your traditional values…or
B. Delete all that tedious “back in the old country” nonsense and instantly become an English speakin’ cheeseburger eatin’ stetson wearin’ rootin’ tootin’ howdy y’all.
Going with option A, huh? How original. We’ve run this experiment on real hardware literally hundreds of millions of times over the last 250 years and not a single immigrant has gone with Option B.
Okay so…now you’re an American. You’re still an Italian though. It’s who and what you are. You get married and have children. How do you raise those children? Do you…
A. Speak Italian to them at home, take them to the same church you were raised in, feed them the foods you were raised eating, teach them the same values you believe in, tell them the tales of your home country’s folklore as bedtime stories…or
B. Speak to them only in English, send them to the First Baptist Church, feed them apple sauce and happy meals, and raise them on Sesame Street and Marvel comics.
Going with option A again? Daring today, aren’t we? Your children are required to go to American public school. They’re formally taught to read, write, speak and understand English, and invariably put in the role of translating for their parents during doctors visits and the like. They’re taught American legends like the first thanksgiving with the pilgrims and Indians, of George Washington and that cherry tree. They grow up eating the food their parents invented out of necessity, like spaghetti and meatballs, or chicken parmesan.
One day, well into their adulthood, someone asks your children a question. It might be “Where are you from?” or some similar phraseology. How do your bilingual spaghetti-eating children answer this question?
“We’re Italian.”
Now that we’ve been on that journey, I want you to imagine logging onto the internet to find some dumb fuck who never left the Old Country, who has never been to a place where “What is your current nationality” and “What is your personal heritage” are different questions with different answers and thus has no grasp at all on the concept of diaspora says “No you’re not.”
There are several problems there:
- Stereotypically, the Americans doing this are way further removed from their ancestry than the second-generation immigrants you describe (in fact it’s completely normal and accepted for second-gen immigrants to identify as their parent’s nationality as well in Europe);
- “I’m Italian” and “I have Italian ancestry” are NOT the same sentence. You seem to realize that, but many Americans don’t, and the comment you replied to complained about the former, and the difference is fundamental;
- Europeans are generally not on board with the whole “ethnic identity” stuff that Americans do, for a variety of reasons that one could simplify down to “last time we did that, nazism happened”. The mainstream progressive view is humanist and intentionally colorblind, and it is therefore profoundly shocking to see Americans derive a sense of self-worth from their blood, because these are the talking points we normally only hear in documentaries about Mussolini…
Now I have spent enough time reading about how American view their complicated relationship to race, ethnicity, and ancestry, to understand where you’re coming from, but this is fundamentally at odds to the humanist approach of “we’re all the same and who your great-grandparents were does not define who you are in any way”. (Which is obviously idealist, and does tend to “whitewash” some struggles, but it is nonetheless the prevailing approach).
I don’t agree with your third point at all.
I don’t think I’ve met any Americans that use their ancestry as a sense of “self worth” in any meaningful amount. For the vast majority of people it’s just a interesting quirk people like to share about their ancestry. Taking that and criticizing it because “last time we did it, nazism happened” is quite a stretch.
Mate, I’ve seen long-term immigrants not just of my own nation but other nations who returned and was even myself an immigrant of my own nation for over 2 decades abroad, and after 2 or 3 decades people living abroad are already culturally and even in values different from their countrymen, due to a mix of partially absorbing the values and way of being in life and society of were they live, and because their own country kept on changing over time generally in a different way in which they themselves change (it’s quite funny how they have ideas about how their own country of birth is that don’t really match the reality and look silly and outdated to the people actually living there).
This is a mere 2 or 3 decades for people who actually grew up in their nation of origin.
People 2 or 3 generations away from said nation are not only descendants of immigrants with a deviating cultural framework as describe above, but they have grown up in a different nation (and from all my observations living in a couple of countries, people culturally tend to be closer to the country they grew up in more than the country of their parents) and at least their parents and possibly their grandparents were already people who grew up in a different nation and only knew about the nation of their ancestors via 2nd or 3rd hand accounts.
Whatever “culture” and “value” they have from their ancestors’ nation of origin is a thin slice, deeply degraded (often charicaturally so - note the mention of spaghetti eating to mean “culturally italian”, something which would make me Italian and my Italian ancestors if any came over during the Roman Empire) and severelly outdated (a century or more) version of the culture and values of the nation of origin of their ancestors.
The difference for example between an American of Italian ancestry and one of Irish ancestry is token if that much compared to the difference between an actual modern Italian and an Irish: American-Italian, American-Irish and so on are but sub-cultures of the United States of America culture and draw most of their ways and values from that one, not from the cultures of the countries of origin of their great-grandparents.
In a room full of experiences like above, no one is counting the “depth” of cultural connection, nor would it be appropriate to say so. You wouldn’t say “how Mexican are you?” And suppose that a 2 or 3 generation Mexican American (born US, never returned to Mexico significantly) was not still importantly connected to their heritage.
No one from America thinks they are citizens from anywhere else (unless they have the passport). But as a nation of immigration, heritage is of social interest, and all take pride in what parts they are made from. They don’t think they are literally Italian or similar.
As long as you speak the language, it’s fine by me. Once you stop speaking Italian at home (in this example) it’s over, you can’t call yourself Italian anymore.
According to the Codex Wiesonius.
TIL most people born in Ireland are not Irish.
You joke but that’s what I’m been told by Italians from Italy. If your name is Angela Spaghetti but you cannot speak a single word in Italian, you’re not considered Italian, maybe Italian American at best (which just means you’re American to Italian eyes).
When your country is so young, nearly everybody is an immigrant. So it’s hard to take pride in a family lineage that is at most 4 generations of being American. Plus, we don’t really have a unified national identity. “American” could literally mean every type of person.
funny that you say that, not all Europeans are stuck in the same nationality for 10 or 30 generations back, maybe not even majority.
My great-grandmother was German, never learned the language of what is now my nationality. My grandmother and her child (my parent) didn’t speak German and have never subscribed to German nationality, neither do I (but I speak a little bit German though becouse of school not because of family). Maybe it’s because the identity of the place I live in is as strong as Germany’s so it’s a simple choice. But for a country, whose entire schtick is “'Murica fokk yea” I am sometimes baffled how much this ancestral identity matters among people who are supposed to benefit from the whole thing (white middle/upper classes).
I suspect that’s because Europe is hugelly varied whilst the United States are, in what’s actually almost twice area, much less varied in terms of culture and values (for example, the whole of North American has all of 3 main languages - with English clearly dominant - whilst Europe has over 20 main ones plus another 80 or so minor ones).
Living in Europe it’s very likely that you’ll actually cross paths with and even know well people from the country of your ancestors (plus from lots of other quite different countries) and lose all illusions that you’re culturally the same, whilst in the US one can live in blissfull ignorance thinking eating spaghetti and having an Italian great-grandfather makes them a lot like Italians, never actually having met and gotten to know well an actual modern italian.
It’s actually funny: people within a specific cultural environment have a tendency to spot in great detail everybody’s slight differences, which for outsiders are pretty closed to unremarkeable, and it’s only when you go live elsewhere do you notice all those “great differences” were nothing at all compared to the differences in people between countries, at least in Europe. It’s actually funny how for example my keen spotting of regional differences in my home nation of Portugal (which is tiny yet even that one has such things) suddenly became silly when I moved to The Netherlands, by comparisson with the great differences in people between the two countries, and ditto when I moved to England, and then as I lived longer and longer in those countries I started spotting the regional difference in people within those countries (and in the special case of Britain, the differences between people from the various nations also became sharper in my eyes).
I suppose things like an Italian-American subculture come from that keen spotting of what for outsiders are quite small differences and then that mixed with profound ignorance on the subject matter makes many confuse being “an American with a drizzle of Italian” with being part Italian.
Mind you, it’s all valid. It’s just that for me who have lived in a couple of countries in Europe, been to quite a few more, can speak several european languages and know people who actually grew in various countries in Europe, that kind of identification with the nation of one’s ancestors in the US looks quite ill-informed.
No, this is an American thing. Other countries in the American continent have the same immigrant thing going on and we don’t call ourselves Italian or whatever. We are all from the country where we were born.
This is a miss on one of the best parts of America.
This is a country of immigration and everyone has a story and a different background.
Ummm… The US was built on immigrants, what other American country is? Look at early era NY, I don’t know any other country in America built off a huge influx of diversity like that. It was how the US grew, through immigration. But I’m open to being wrong if you could show me any.
For example, South/Central American countries all have their own deep, rich, and most importantly, long history of culture and heritage. The US does not, outside Native Americans that is.
What the hell? All countries in the continent are about the same age. Europeans after the wars fled to lots of different countries. Sao Paulo, Brazil, for example, has the largest number of Japanese immigrants in the world. My ancestors came from Italy, Hungary, Spain, and Portugal.
Maradona, the great Argentine football player, descended from native American, Spanish, Italian and Croatian ancestors. Another Argentine footballer, Lionel Messi, descended from Italian and Spanish immigrants. Bolsonaro, shitty ex-president of Brazil, has an Italian surname. He won the previous election against Fernando Haddad, who has a Turkish surname.
It’s not about age. The US is a blend of cultures without a real single identity. It is very different than say Brazilian history, which is much older than the US.
Brazil was originally settled by stone-age tribes. In 1500, Portuguese explorer Pedro Alvares Cabral arrived in Brazil with 1,200 adventurers. Cabral claimed Brazil as a colony of Portugal. The first settlement was founded in 1532. Which is a few hundred years sooner than the US and not established with multiple peoples she cultures.
are they claiming nationality or ethnic heritage?
City zoning.
Oh, i have to drive from single family zone to commercial district to pick up a loaf of bread. Then drive to education district to drop kids at kindergarten, and finally to business district to work. At the end of the day i hang out at bar/entertainment district with the guys from work to have a beer, but there’s no public transport so I have to drink alcohol free so I can drive back home. That’s only 120 miles in a day!
Vote for people who actively oppose universal healthcare, mandatory PTO policies, universal family leave policies, universal college-level education, etc.
Healthcare, electoral college, how supreme court justices are elected, first past the post voting system.
Edit: and the self assurance to nitpick a foreigner over the details of how justices come into their job.
Supreme Court justices aren’t elected.
The Electoral College exists because it was never the intent for the President to be elected by the public. It sticks around because changing it requires changing the Constitution, and a majority of states benefit from the status quo.
The way politicians and the political system nakedly serves the needs and interests of corporations and the wealthy, and not the average individual.
The way that the price you’re quoted invariably gets bumped up by various taxes.
The insane system that is tipping, including the fact that a lot of workers are so underpaid that they rely on tips to get by.
The incessant adverts on TV for medical products, particularly prescription drugs.
City design and suburbs. Like if I had to drive 40 minutes to get groceries I would prefer to starve and those suburbs look like death would be the better alternative. Also driving to go for a walk, wtf?
No one in a real city or suburb is driving 40 minutes to get groceries in the US.
I was being somewhat hyperbolic, the point was you guys have to drive everywhere to do anything which is so alien to me. Or I guess take public transit which always sounds horrible when Americans describe it, which is also something that sounds so weird to me about the US.
You’re right, we do have to drive to get anywhere outside of major cities. The funny thing is that even the most rural area has a fleet of busses and routes that cover every home. The problem is that they only come through twice a day on weekdays during the school year. Other than that these busses just sit around forcing old folks who can’t to drive anyway.
A lot of my coworkers live 30-50m from work. It would drive me nuts.
I’m in America and I’ve always lived a 10 to 15 minute walk away from the store. It’s that a long walk compared to Europeans? I think I was further from a store when I was in Germany for a week. Like 30 minute walk.
Are you saying that’s the norm in the US?
I have always been about 5 minutes walk from the grocery store in Estonia.
Yeah for the majority that live in the cities. Less people live in the country and most of the country towns still have a food mart. So most Americans don’t live that far from a store.
“most Americans” don’t live in a city that dense and certainly drive to the store for groceries. But when I say “to the store” it’s not the same as what Europeans think. It’s not a little corner store where you get your groceries for the day. It’s a giant Walmart/Kroger where you load up for the whole week so you don’t have to go as often.
“most Americans” don’t live in a city that dense and certainly drive to the store for groceries.
Nah, they certainly do.
this is half America’s population and each of those places is centered around major cities in the area.
when I say “to the store” it’s not the same as what Europeans think. It’s not a little corner store where you get your groceries for the day. It’s a giant Walmart/Kroger where you load up for the whole week so you don’t have to go as often.
Sure, that’s what the bulk of Americans do because it’s easier but it’s certainly possible for them to walk to the store. Everyone drives because they are lazy. I’m American, you can’t tell me we are lazy and fat and thus only want to go to the store once a week or less. Also compared to European stores, our stores are huge and purposely confusing. So they can get you to walk around the store more. So your fat lazy ass will get hungry and impulse buy a bunch of stuff. Also, the things at eye level have the most markup which tend to be the most processed foods.
I guess it’s a misconception then that living in the US without a car is very difficult.
That is not a misconception at all with the exception of a few very densely packed cities like New York City.
lol that’s fair. But also, the there’s a cyclical relationship between suburbs and grocers. If you build suburbs, the grocers arrive. Where there are grocers, people might live and form suburbs. You really only have to “drive 40 minutes to get groceries” if you’re waaaaaaaaaaaaay out in the sticks. Or, and I’m sorry to say it, what’s more likely, is you live in a dense, urban area and are very near groceries, but can’t afford a vehicle to get there directly, and so you’ve got to walk to the bus stop and wait for the bus to come around. This could definitely total 40 minutes to go get some eggs and milk. It’s a fucking tragedy.
There a certain ironic cycle there. The cycle you describe of building the suburbs, stores moving in, and people moving in is one part of the cycle. This leads to over-development (in that fucked up car-centric way we have, which leads to traffic congestion etc), and people start moving further out to get away from it. They end up on the edges of it “in the country” with maybe a 40 minute drive for groceries. But then often, the sprawl follows them and their bit of “the country” gets more and more like what they fled.
Grocery is always 5 minutes away in the suburbs. I think you underestimate the amount of stores
I think you underestimate the sprawl of suburbs.
American here. I hate this too. I am a proponent of convenient walking locations and far better public transportation, and it doesn’t look like America’s gonna give a damn about those in my lifetime.
Not Just Bikes (YouTube channel talking about this) basically said they’ve given up on any hope for north america.
Guns. Just restrict them, it’s not that hard
The “winner takes all” political system that ends with two extremist parties and a huge divide between people
Healthcare. Do I need to say anything?
The extreme divide between rich and poor
Police force. They hire lowly educated people, preferably racist, receiving barely any training, and what they do get is mostly nonsense. They then get military equipment, and the entire system is protected by a corrupt union
The amount that news organizations are allowed to lie
Your houses seem to be made out of paper. Then you complain about strong winds…
I remember hearing that Europe doesn’t use drywall nearly as much. A benefit of drywall is cost and repairability, but is basically glorified paper, yes.
You don’t have to repair it if you can’t break it.
Try breaking a brick wall with your head or fists, lol.
Try rebuilding a brick wall after a tornado, you’re going to spend so much more money and you won’t have a house for a lot longer
That’s the other side of the confusion. You build houses out of sticks and paper, and live in somewhere called Tornado Alley…
I don’t build houses, nor do I live in Tornado Alley lol
I think that was an empirical “you”, not you specifically…
Yeah, I live in an area prone to tornadoes. Not as tornado prone as the midwest, but we’ve seen tornadoes in this area.
A particularly notable one touched down in a town not far from here, in the business district. It tore down multiple steel framed cinder block buildings including a Lowe’s Home Improvement Center and a Tractor Supply Company.
A big bad wolf might not be able to blow a brick house down, but an EF3 tornado certainly can.
I’d like to see a tornado tearing up a brick house as easily as a wood and drywall house.
It doesn’t need to tear it down, just weaken it enough that it’s no longer structually sound.
They do, its a tornado. They destroy anything weaker than a nuclear bunker.
Here you go.
Context of the image? Date? Location?
Easy, can your brick house handle a 400 kph car flying into, follow by chunks of trees, houses, ice ball the size of grapfruit.
It also hurts way less if you accidentally hit it as an side benefit. I’m Canadian and we also use drywall for everything.
The benefit of stick frame houses is that they can be built quickly, comparatively cheaply, and actually perform much better than other types in hurricane and tornados. The US also has plenty of domestic wood production, so it’s the cheapest material to build with. During the housing boom and suburban sprawl of the 50s (where modern American culture started), where everyone wanted their own house and plot of land in rhe “safe suburbs,” these were all desirable.
As for the “why don’t you build out of brick and stone,” it’s not like someone would be better off with a stone house in the event of a natural disaster or fire. Even if the structure was still standing, the damage to the foundation would condemn the house under US building code. And now not only does your insurance have to pay to build a new house, it has to pay to have the old one tore down.
Where does this come from. All Euro houses made out of harden steel and concrete?
Canadian here but still, shoes in house? Gross. Obsession with gun culture? Also gross.
Shoes in the house is very regional. I live in Colorado and everyone takes off their shoes just inside the door when visiting. The only exception would be like if someone came to deliver a piece of furniture or something where they need foot protection. Maybe it’s more common where it doesn’t ever snow, to leave them on?
Also Canadian, and never understood it - but in thinking, are there any Canadian shows that show the people in their own house without shoes on?
Canadian too, I wear my shoes inside. I don’t have kids, and I don’t roll around on the floor, so why would I care?
