• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    179 days ago

    Weirdest thing? It’s the guns. Definitely the prevalence of guns in the hands of civilians.

    Oh. And also how they eat as if their healthcare was affordable.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      139 days ago

      Criticizing how we eat is like criticizing how the pigs in the farm eat.

      We’re not here to be healthy. We’re livestock. Our health only matters insofar as it affects the bottom line.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      18 days ago

      the prevalence of guns in the hands of civilians.

      We have a lot of guns in the hands of civilians here as well (Finland), but the difference is that they’re mostly hunting weapons and we have strict gun control laws - how you can get them, how they have to be stored, what types you can even have, and all that. What’s crazy about US is the amount and type of guns, how easily you can get them, the ways they’re kept so loosely, and the craziest to me; in some places even carried openly. To an outsider the lack of proper gun control seems to have lead into some GTA type of insanity

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        I just checked wikipedia. Finland’s murder rate is 0.982 per 100k. Europe as a whole is 2.1 per 100k. US is 5.763 per 100k. So we are over 5 times as likely to be killed. Who would have guessed that rampant inequality paired with having more guns than people was a bad idea.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    809 days ago

    First thing that comes to mind for me is the huge number of people who are religious fanatics here, which is unusual for a Western country. This is also a big part of what led us to the fascist government we have today.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      269 days ago

      I think you’ve kinda missed the lede - religious fanatics. We’ve got plenty of those. Other western countries have quite a few religious people, but they aren’t often in-your-face cross wearing, “I’m a Christian”, openly judgy Karens like they are here.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        129 days ago

        Look at the nutjobs that were the backbone of what became America. Basically a bunch of puritan nutjobs who didn’t like how laissez faire England was becoming so they hopped on the boat to America so they could make their puritanical paradise.

        Y’all are just noticing it now which is a failure of the education system. Then again we already know this.

        Thoughts and prayers to America 🙏🏾

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          89 days ago

          You’re not wrong. It wasn’t for “freedom of religion”, it was for freedom of their religion.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            29 days ago

            Yup. They fled to escape religious persecution and then promptly did it themselves when they got here.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          59 days ago

          The puritans were run out of England after how badly they ran it during the interregum. It was the Netherlands from whence they fled religious tolerance.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        239 days ago

        I specified religious fanatics because they’re the problem, not religious people in general.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          38 days ago

          Evangelism in America is a major problem that needs to be addressed. The sooner religion is snuffed out the faster we can begin to build community based on real life.

      • 🍉 Albert 🍉
        link
        fedilink
        189 days ago

        in Europe, someone tells me their are Christian or are wearing a cross, it’s no big deal.

        in the US, it’s a massive red flag

  • Frenchfryenjoyer (she/her)
    link
    fedilink
    248 days ago
    • 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
    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      248 days ago

      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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      98 days ago

      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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        7
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          28 days ago

          Well, that’s at least some improvement. Still, I hate that situation for you guys - nobody should have their life swept away like that.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      118 days ago

      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?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      178 days ago

      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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      17 days ago

      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.

    • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ
      link
      fedilink
      68 days ago

      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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      68 days ago

      Houses of woods aren’t really bad or the problem, but houses of wood that are held together by osb and cardboard is odd.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        27 days ago

        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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    149 days ago

    all their culture about being lovable good guys who do a goof and like their music

    IRL they are the most joyless, dispassionate people who inflict nothing but misery on the world and each other

    i say dispassionate but they do love

    • caging people

    • abandoning their sick and elderly

    • poisoning their own children

    • bombing hospitals

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        18 days ago

        Who do you think vote for, and form the government?

        In a democratic country, the government is a reflection of the people.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        So the tens of millions of Trump supporters, and the tens of millions of useless centrists, and the tens of millions who don’t even show up…ya know I think that they’re onto something, actually.

        The US is a shithole and there are far fewer good people there than shitty or even barely acceptable people. I feel sorry for the good people who live there, really I do, but in general the place can get right fucked.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          18 days ago

          Those millions of Americans are not (all) calling for cagings and bombings.

          Voters and not voters could have done more, but Inaction is not evil.

          The people designing policy, supporting policy, implementing policy and executing orders are your focus of anger. Not the general populous.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            18 days ago

            Right but again, tens of millions of them are and many tens of millions are not distancing themselves from it at nearly even the bare minimum speed.

            The general populous had their chance to prove they weren’t that stupid and horrible about a decade ago. And then they all flocked toward Trump three times in a row. Maybe you’re not understanding, which tracks, but even the best case scenario is that the US is filled to the brim with people so utterly, fantastically stupid that they fall for the shit that the conservatives peddle and many who don’t vote GOP still think the conservative Dems are gunna save them.

            All the resources in the damn world and it’s a country of poverty, stupidity, and cruelty. Fuck the US.

  • 🍉 Albert 🍉
    link
    fedilink
    89 days ago

    CIA needs to be abolished, and everyone in the CIA who did anything illegal or incredibly unethical needs to be prosecuted for it (if they did illegal stuff in allied nations then extradited).

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      8
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Unfortunately, running on this as a campaign promise would get you killed. What you need to do is promise amnesty on the grounds of “healing the nation” and then revoke that amnesty once you’re in power. As Sun Tzu wrote, never surround your enemy on all four sides.

      • 🍉 Albert 🍉
        link
        fedilink
        29 days ago

        yhea, if the CIA doesn’t want you dead, are you really doing anything with your life?

  • ileftreddit
    link
    fedilink
    English
    239 days ago

    MKULTA and COINTELPRO were pretty wild. Operation Northwoods as well. And the FBI basically admitted to assassinating Dr King. By the 1990s they learned to eliminate the paper trails, so probably no telling who actually knew what regarding 9/11 or the 20 trillion dollars that vanished into thin air during Iraq and Afghanistan

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      10
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      I’ve always maintained that we let 9/11 happen to drum up public support to spin up the war machine and further the conservative plot to take over the country. I don’t think we orchestrated it, but I do think we knew and looked the other way.

      We did it with Pearl Harbor, so it’s 100% within the realm of possibility that we did it with 9/11.

        • ileftreddit
          link
          fedilink
          English
          28 days ago

          There were, iirc a number of serious trade restrictions and other measures enacted against Japan at the time that virtually guaranteed their declaring war on us. I don’t think Pearl Harbor itself was anticipated though

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            18 days ago

            It’s depressing the degree with which we were taught that Japan basically just bombed the US for no reason other than they were a bloodthirsty race who yearned to go out killing for its own sake. And then we berate them for not teaching history properly.

    • 🍉 Albert 🍉
      link
      fedilink
      119 days ago

      don’t forget the CONTA scandal, illegally financing violent drug cartels to flood black streets with drugs, to sell missiles to Iran and fill private prisons with black people for slave labour.

      it sounds like made up BS.

      • ileftreddit
        link
        fedilink
        English
        59 days ago

        Oh yeah, fairly recently (last 10 years or so) a private jet owned by a CIA shell company went down stuffed to the gills with cocaine. They were 100% responsible for the crack epidemic and the “war on drugs” aka war on POC

        • 🍉 Albert 🍉
          link
          fedilink
          79 days ago

          Ronald Reagan switching sides on the war of drugs such a twist.

          and he was right “we do not negotiate with terrorists” he meant he doesn’t negotiate, he just gives them what they want

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      59 days ago

      Operation Northwoods

      One thing that’s often missed about this in the hero-worship of JFK is that Kennedy’s administration desperately wanted to intervene in Cuba militarily - just because Castro was a Communist - and they had been pressuring the CIA hard to find something to justify an invasion. This was the context in which the CIA finally said “well, we can’t find anything, so how about we fake attacks on US citizens and blame it on Cuba?” It wasn’t like the CIA came up with this plan on its own out of the blue and presented it to Kennedy for approval.

      To their discredit, the CIA would certainly have done this happily if Kennedy had given the go-ahead, but he said “uh, that’s a little too far.”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    89 days ago

    Sure, but just because some conspiracies are true, does not mean all of them are.

    The vast majority are false and will never get a declassified file.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      149 days ago

      Probably the greatest thing the CIA ever did; make “conspiracy” synonymous with “bullshit that didn’t happen”.

      After WWII when amateur radios became popular sharing information also grew. Even if the government was now having a harder time getting away with bullshit, all they needed to do was invent 9 bullshit stories for every 1 correct one out there and then everyone would conclude (rightly) that “vast majority are false”. And then when they do encounter a real one, again, they rightly think “most are bullshit” but that implies “so this one is probably as well”, for all of them, always.

      “Conspiracy” means nothing more than something illegal being purposefully orchestrated by two or more people.

  • FartsWithAnAccent
    link
    fedilink
    579 days ago

    What am I gonna do about it?

    Listen here you bastard: Nothing, that’s what!

    Oh wait, that’s probably why they keep doing it.

  • sk1nnym1ke
    link
    fedilink
    English
    359 days ago

    As a German I don’t understand why the USA basically do have two political parties. I know there are technically other parties but they have no impact.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      35
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      It is actually 2 flavors of the same party. The USA is a one-party state, controlled by the capitalist party.

      EDIT: lol you can downvote me while you decide whether you want to vote for the Israel-defending-capitalist-that-ran-on-“securing”-the-border or the other Israel-defending-capitalist-that-ran-on-“securing”-the-border 🤪

      • The Quuuuuill
        link
        fedilink
        English
        39 days ago

        two the two people who downvoted this person, it’s true though. any two party system is a one party system where all government decisions are made long before we find out about them as the politicians form coalitions within their parties. the republicans didn’t become MAGA in 2016. they became MAGA in 2014 and 2015. 2016 was just them announcing their coalition

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      89 days ago

      They have no impact for several reasons, but one weird thing about us Americans is that we’re never happy. The Clinton years were peace and prosperity. Nope! Not having any more of that, in comes Bush. We did well enough with Obama. Nope! In comes Trump.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness
        link
        fedilink
        59 days ago

        I don’t know about Bush, but the people who voted for Trump decidedly did not do well enough with Obama. Radical wealth redistribution is necessary to fix American society and Obama was not that.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      129 days ago

      “Winner takes it all” makes it inherent to the system. They really really need to change that. But that is hard, when it keeps the only two relevant partys in power.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      209 days ago

      Because they don’t do proportional voting like you Germans or we Austrians do, most of their elections (and all federal ones) have one winning candidate in a state or congressional district.

      And there is mostly not even a requirement for 50% of the vote, but the candidate with most votes wins. That creates the two party system.

      The parties in the US are much broader than in our countries, it’s very common for different members of the same party to vote against each other.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        19 days ago

        Exactly, what that means is that we have a tactical concern where the more voters represented by an elected official and the more disparate they are the worse of an idea it is for you specifically to split a vote. That’s actually why Abraham Lincoln (the guy who was president during our civil war and oversaw the abolition of chattel slavery) won his election.

        This creates the irony of it being somewhat common to have a lot of differing meaningful political choices for city council, third parties being not rare in state government, third parties being very rare in the national congress (though some independents will happen, notably from weird states like Vermont, which is a very rebellious in a cool way state), and third parties only win the presidency in times of calamatous upheaval. For context the last time a third party won the presidency is the election I linked earlier in this comment, half the country went to literal war over that result.

    • Canaconda
      link
      fedilink
      1029 days ago
      1. Because first past the post electoral systems always result in a 2 party system due to defensive voting.

      2. Because Americans didn’t listen to George Washington, when during his farewell address he strongly cautioned against “alternate domination” of a 2 party system.

      3. Because Americans are woefully uneducated, dis-interested, and preoccupied.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        89 days ago

        Because first past the post electoral systems always result in a 2 party system due to defensive voting.

        Nope. FPTP is the norm worldwide and two party systems very much the exception. Even in the US, it’s only been the last third or so of the country’s history that two have managed to become so all-conquering in spite of being so unrepresentative.

        George Washington, when during his farewell address he strongly cautioned against “alternate domination” of a 2 party system.

        Pretty sure he was very much against the concept of political parties in general, rather than having any preference as to how many.

        But yeah, the two major parties HAVE pretty much embodied all his worries and more…

        Because Americans are woefully uneducated, dis-interested, and preoccupied.

        That’s a big part of the problem, sure, but the issues of regulatory capture and the two parties themselves being in charge of how the entire system works (including the barriers to entry for everyone else) is MUCH more critical.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        179 days ago

        There’s some structural reasons (the senate, primarily) that American politics will almost inevitably devolve into two parties.

        If I could do one thing to fix American politics it would be to abolish the senate, which gives low population states an insanely unbalanced level of influence over national politics.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          149 days ago

          It drives me ls me crazy that Alaska gets the same amount of senate votes as California when we’re fifty times their population.

        • Canaconda
          link
          fedilink
          29 days ago

          (the senate, primarily)

          Fair point! In Canada our senate is appointed by the Prime Minister and the position is lifetime. They rarely reject bills from the lower house.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            89 days ago

            Wow, I didn’t realize there even was a Canadian senate, I only ever hear about parliament and figured it was all MPs.

            • Canaconda
              link
              fedilink
              39 days ago

              Exactly lol. All commonwealths have an upper and lower house just like the USA. I believe their senates are appointed as well, though I have not verified that.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        329 days ago

        And because now that it’s entrenched, the two parties will collude even past the death of the country to keep it that way

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          289 days ago

          This comment from another post here on Lemmy says it all.

          I was listening to the 5-4 podcast recently and they repeatedly stressed the point that Trump has lost ≈90% of lower court decisions and won ≈90% of Supreme Court decisions, which is an absurd swing. I’ll try to dig up a source on it though. Still it’s blatantly obvious that the SC has completely abandoned the rule of law and the constitution.

          Without rule of law, we’re no longer a country.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            109 days ago

            Reading actual SCOTUS rulings can be pretty wild. The one for the 2000 presidential election basically said “we’re giving this to Bush for no particular reason but this is a one-time decision that should never in the future be used as a precedent” despite the fact that precedent from previous rulings is pretty much their whole thing. Even the stay they issued to stop the recount in Florida early in the process basically said “the recount must stop because it would impair the legitimacy of a Bush presidency”.

            The ruling against Roe v. Wade was just comedy. They were using English law from centuries before the United States even existed as precedent for their decision.

      • TachyonTele
        link
        fedilink
        English
        39 days ago

        Didn’t Jackson warn about point 2 as well? Or was it Jefferson? Someone did, and it also went unheeded (or used as a blueprint.)

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        28 days ago

        Most countries have FPTP but manage to have many parties in their parliaments/congress/diet. And I don’t think the US is any more disinterested than most countries.

        The main difference is the US has an insane amount of money at the top level, to the extent that it’s basically impossible to participate in national level politics without both (a) a few billionaires backing you, and (b) the rest of the billionaires not objecting too hard.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      79 days ago

      Oh man, I’m not sure how to condense this much context.

      1. Since the days when the USA was economically reliant on slavery for land development and market growth, the US population has been split over the issue of race and ethnicity. Even before that, the USA was founded by religious conservatives fleeing the church reforms in Europe. “Freedom of Religion” was put into the constitution not to separate church and state but to protect church from state. Because of these very strong and very harmful ideologies, naturally the people split into two camps: for ethnonationalism or against.

      2. The US Constitution is very old. The USA as a country is very young, but it’s still one of the oldest democratic systems of government still in use today. It is very flawed: utilizing the electoral college, capping the seats in the house, each state with wildly different population getting two senators, the senate confirming judges, and worst of all “first past the post” ballots. In hindsight a lot of this is terrible for a functioning democracy, but the ethnonationalist party doesn’t really like democracy anyways so it’s going to take a supermajority to fix it, if you even believed the opposition party were motivated to fix it.

      It’s kind of like how the Weimar Republic was before the Nazis took over. There is a united hard right party and then theres the SPD. You COULD split the SPD’s influence into farther left and communist parties, but then if they don’t individually have enough seats they fail to form a government the Nazis have opportunity to become majority in the face of continued inaction from the government.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        39 days ago

        but the ethnonationalist party doesn’t really like democracy anyways so it’s going to take a supermajority to fix it, if you even believed the opposition party were motivated to fix it.

        In other words literally never going to happen. The electorate has been hand picked by legalized gerrymandering that getting a supermajority is less likely to happen than getting bitten by a shark that’s getting struck by lightning as you’re winning the lottery :(

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          29 days ago

          Idk, we came close for like 3 months in the 2010-2011 congress.

          We cod get 67 DNC in the midterms if we magically voted out all 20 Republicans, which would be very cool if unlikely.

  • deadcatbounce
    link
    fedilink
    8
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    That they live in the 18th century with 21st century things. Religious fanatics all referring to the devil in him and Jesus saved him - separation of church and state but there’s references to god everywhere and politicians don’t get elected until they’re reciting lumps of the Bible in every speech.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      27 days ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        47 days ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          37 days ago

          Code is for the government. The people should be free to celebrate the freedom it’s meant to represent.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            17 days ago

            Sure, but if they really had the respect for it they pretend to have, they wouldn’t be wearing it.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              6 days ago

              A piece of fabric is not worthy of respect, the values it’s meant to represent are. Disrespecting the flag against it’s own code is one of the greatest statements of that freedom

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                16 days ago

                Yes, but the people that wear the flag are generally the same ones that want to make burning it in protest illegal. The hypocrisy of wanting to force respect for the flag yet not respecting it yourself is what I am against.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    188 days ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      98 days ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        17 days ago

        Milton Friedman is where he got it and it’s pretty common piece of propaganda pushed by wealthy interests.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        37 days ago

        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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          27 days ago

          Maybe, but to them the money makes it okay that Trump diddled children.

          Morally bankrupt people will believe in whatever “truth” best serves their interests.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            17 days ago

            It depends on whether they hear about the abuse from their in-person social networks. the propaganda networks will never cover what trump has been doing to children

            While there are right wing cults that will accept pedophiles as their leaders, for the majority of those who watch propaganda channels, child rape is the only crime they won’t abide. It goes back to their foundational beliefs on abortion.

  • GladiusB
    link
    fedilink
    87 days ago

    That we dont want to be trailer trash, but a good 95 percent of us are.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    17
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      118 days ago

      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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      5
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Christianity (and all religions imo) are a fucking stain on humanity, they bring so much more harm than good upon us.

      • ...m...
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        …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…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      58 days ago

      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?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    308 days ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      19
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        18 days ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        18 days ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          17 days ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            17 days ago

            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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          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…

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          27 days ago

          The loud mouthed, gun toting morons in this country are the ones that fell for Donald Trump

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          17 days ago

          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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          17 days ago

          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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      38 days ago

      Yes, that whole thing went from defending guns in schools to nothing burger in a matter of seconds.