10 Things Most Americans Don?t Know About America

Recommended Videos

beastro

New member
Jan 6, 2012
564
0
0
Hitler was primarily defeated by Russia (not us)
Skimmed, saw this and stopped reading further due to two things.

1: Russia =\= The Soviet Union. If that's the case, then we should call Americans Texans or Californians. Displaying such an utter lack of regard for the distinction throwing the articles credibility into question.

2: The Soviets did the majority of the fighting, but guess who supplied them? This isn't so much about the arms Lend Lease gave them but the basic equipment. From trucks to trains to the machines they used to build most every came from the US as the Soviets struggled to move their factories beyond the Urals.

Here were some brain-stumpers for me: the Vietnamese believe the Vietnam War was about China (not us)
Able to back this up with anything?

Sure, it wasn't US-centric, but that was because the Vietnam, then the North got locked into throwing out outside influences while forcing Communism on the whole of the country to reuniting the two parts of it.

They began with throwing the Japs out during WWII, then the French, then conquering the South and ejecting the United State, then ejecting the Chinese when they invaded.

and the American Revolution was "won" because the British cared more about beating France (not us).
No, it was won by the United States thanks to massive French military aid and French funding which turned around the bit them in the ass when decades of rampant spending caught up them and led to the financial crisis which bred the French Revolution.

Native Americans were wiped out by a plague (not us)
You'll find that the only Americans obsessed with the perception that their country exterminated the Indians are those whose agenda is to degrade their country and try to make it out to be the worse nation in history.
 

Dragonpit

New member
Nov 10, 2010
637
0
0
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Okay, that's all well and good that you don't necessarily agree with the original post (if it could be called such), but this is a personal essay, meaning it's highly opinionated. It literally reeks of his own experiences and perceptions; it's the whole point.
Lecturing people based on your biased personal experiences is not a very good point to have. If he's going to lecture someone he should try to be at least a bit objective and accurate about it instead of just sounding full of himself.
I was going to say, "It's not a lecture", but I had the foresight to check the article first before doing so. So instead, I'm going to say that the author is making generalizations like you mentioned, and the author himself knows it. He's made it clear that he knows they don't apply to everyone just before his little list. So what I'm wondering about is what you expect with this in mind. Do you want him to acknowledge every single exception in the world in his article? (I'm actually not trying to sound condescending, so I apologize in advance if I come off at such.) I mean, you don't have to agree with him, like I said. I just can't help but think you're being somewhat unreasonable.
He's lecturing the country in general. Saying "Oh it only applies to most people" doesn't magically make it immune from criticism. I'd argue it doesn't necessarily even apply to most. Furthermore some of my complaints have to do with more than just it being a generalization.
Agreed. It doesn't make it immune to criticism. That's why I said you didn't have to agree. As for it not applying to most, that could just be your experience. Doesn't make you wrong, but it doesn't make him wrong, either.
Considering he's the one making sweeping claims I think that's more of a problem for him than me. He's more or less saying "Most Americans are like X. I know because of the people I've encountered" and I'm replying "Not most of the ones I've met". Which is going to be more of a problem for him because he's trying to claim Americans are a certain way.
I get the impression that you missed the point; he doesn't have to prove his generalizations. Yes, it's self-indulgent and arrogant, but that's the whole point to generalizations. Again, you don't have to agree with them.
No, he doesn't have to but I can still call him on it as a flaw in his position. And it doesn't matter if that's the point to generalizations(a claim that I think is just bullshit), that doesn't defend them.

That aside, I can see you're not just making complaints about the generalization (by the way, comfort and happiness may be linked, but they are not the same thing. A person can be comfortable, but not happy. The author is not wrong in treating them separately here), but as I reread your post, I noticed more often than not, you are responding to a generalization the author made, and often it was with an exceptionally dismissive attitude. You didn't exactly support your argument against his.
Why do I need to support instead of just saying "Well your proof isn't very good because all you have are experiences and mine differ"? It's not as if I'm claiming Americans are mostly a certain way. He's making the sweeping claims, he has much more to defend. I don't exactly need to provide more evidence than he does if I'm just trying to say his evidence to support his claims is questionable.
Well, then I'm confused about the intent behind your complaints. Are you trying to disprove his argument, get him to improve his argument, or do you just simply disagree with him?
I'm pointing out his argument his shit because it is not properly supported, amongst other things. Pointing out flaws in it is all I am doing.
I wasn't aware he was supposed to defend his generalizations. I mean, defending them would effectively change the very nature of his article. It'd wouldn't be a list centered around his viewpoints anymore; it'd be an argument defending those viewpoints, which he wasn't trying to write in the first place. You can still call him out on it, but it seems to be very misplaced here.
If someone is making an argument that seems quite possibly inaccurate, why should I not call them out on it? Sure it's not exactly the place for him to prove it. Doesn't mean that it isn't a valid criticism that there's no particularly good reason to believe him, does it?
That's just it; he's not making an argument. It's a list based around his own conjectures. An opinion can be called misinformed (and no, I'm not saying you can't call him out on it or that you have to believe him), but not inaccurate. That's entirely why I'm saying you don't have to agree. Or are you saying this piece was intended to be a factual piece instead of an opinionated one?
He seems to be presenting it as representative of the majority of Americans, especially with how he dismisses exceptions as "You and your best friend".
So basically, "who is he to judge?" is what you're getting at. Am I right? And it's more like he's saying that he knows what he's saying doesn't apply to everyone, but he can't say there are exceptions every time he changes topic. Saying he's dismissing them makes it sound like he's saying there are no exceptions.
And an opinion can be inaccurate. There can be opinions about what is true and those can be inaccurate in what the holder of the opinion believes.
I'm having trouble grasping this, so let me describe a hypothetical situation to see if I have this right. Let's say someone says they believe the fact "the moon is made of rock" is false. That's the opinion. But we know the moon landing is made of rock due to various things, such as the moon landing. That would make it inaccurate. Am I following what you just told me correctly?
Yes, their belief is inaccurate. That would be my position on it.
In that case, what's being described is not an opinion; it's a misconception. It's not the same thing. Also you may want to check my last post; I edited it a bit and you may want to look it over, since you missed part of my argument.
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion

No, it's an opinion. If you're going to claim it's not at least provide grounds for it.

I edited mine as well to address it.
misconception: a false idea or belief
From the Merriam-Webster website: http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/misconception
I had to look in the thesaurus to find that because, for some reason, looking for the word in the site's dictionary just leads me to the definitions for just its prefix. Don't believe me? Try it yourself.

Also, I don't see any editing.
 

AngloDoom

New member
Aug 2, 2008
2,461
0
0
Wow, this sure surfaced a lot of friction in the thread.

Why are people taking an article like this seriously? It's clearly some person who got sick of people being what they considered 'overly proud' of their country the last 4th of July and decided to try and knock their country down a notch with no sources, citations, or studies used to back up generalisations.

If you are American and this doesn't apply to you and most of the people you know, then why does it matter? Things like this only perpetuate the idea that everyone considers themselves more thoughtful and reflective than the rest of the 'masses'.
 

Kathinka

New member
Jan 17, 2010
1,141
0
0
number #3 is oh so painfully true. i used to live in the states for quite a while and couldn't believe some of the stuff a scary majority of people believed about other places in the world. also, an extremely warped and twisted view on history that for lack of a better word can't be called anything else but propaganda.

the rest is kind of true too (not for everyone, obviously, but still enough to be considered truth.) funny how people go butthurt about it, but it was to be expected..
 

Dragonpit

New member
Nov 10, 2010
637
0
0
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Okay, that's all well and good that you don't necessarily agree with the original post (if it could be called such), but this is a personal essay, meaning it's highly opinionated. It literally reeks of his own experiences and perceptions; it's the whole point.
Lecturing people based on your biased personal experiences is not a very good point to have. If he's going to lecture someone he should try to be at least a bit objective and accurate about it instead of just sounding full of himself.
I was going to say, "It's not a lecture", but I had the foresight to check the article first before doing so. So instead, I'm going to say that the author is making generalizations like you mentioned, and the author himself knows it. He's made it clear that he knows they don't apply to everyone just before his little list. So what I'm wondering about is what you expect with this in mind. Do you want him to acknowledge every single exception in the world in his article? (I'm actually not trying to sound condescending, so I apologize in advance if I come off at such.) I mean, you don't have to agree with him, like I said. I just can't help but think you're being somewhat unreasonable.
He's lecturing the country in general. Saying "Oh it only applies to most people" doesn't magically make it immune from criticism. I'd argue it doesn't necessarily even apply to most. Furthermore some of my complaints have to do with more than just it being a generalization.
Agreed. It doesn't make it immune to criticism. That's why I said you didn't have to agree. As for it not applying to most, that could just be your experience. Doesn't make you wrong, but it doesn't make him wrong, either.
Considering he's the one making sweeping claims I think that's more of a problem for him than me. He's more or less saying "Most Americans are like X. I know because of the people I've encountered" and I'm replying "Not most of the ones I've met". Which is going to be more of a problem for him because he's trying to claim Americans are a certain way.
I get the impression that you missed the point; he doesn't have to prove his generalizations. Yes, it's self-indulgent and arrogant, but that's the whole point to generalizations. Again, you don't have to agree with them.
No, he doesn't have to but I can still call him on it as a flaw in his position. And it doesn't matter if that's the point to generalizations(a claim that I think is just bullshit), that doesn't defend them.

That aside, I can see you're not just making complaints about the generalization (by the way, comfort and happiness may be linked, but they are not the same thing. A person can be comfortable, but not happy. The author is not wrong in treating them separately here), but as I reread your post, I noticed more often than not, you are responding to a generalization the author made, and often it was with an exceptionally dismissive attitude. You didn't exactly support your argument against his.
Why do I need to support instead of just saying "Well your proof isn't very good because all you have are experiences and mine differ"? It's not as if I'm claiming Americans are mostly a certain way. He's making the sweeping claims, he has much more to defend. I don't exactly need to provide more evidence than he does if I'm just trying to say his evidence to support his claims is questionable.
Well, then I'm confused about the intent behind your complaints. Are you trying to disprove his argument, get him to improve his argument, or do you just simply disagree with him?
I'm pointing out his argument his shit because it is not properly supported, amongst other things. Pointing out flaws in it is all I am doing.
I wasn't aware he was supposed to defend his generalizations. I mean, defending them would effectively change the very nature of his article. It'd wouldn't be a list centered around his viewpoints anymore; it'd be an argument defending those viewpoints, which he wasn't trying to write in the first place. You can still call him out on it, but it seems to be very misplaced here.
If someone is making an argument that seems quite possibly inaccurate, why should I not call them out on it? Sure it's not exactly the place for him to prove it. Doesn't mean that it isn't a valid criticism that there's no particularly good reason to believe him, does it?
That's just it; he's not making an argument. It's a list based around his own conjectures. An opinion can be called misinformed (and no, I'm not saying you can't call him out on it or that you have to believe him), but not inaccurate. That's entirely why I'm saying you don't have to agree. Or are you saying this piece was intended to be a factual piece instead of an opinionated one?
He seems to be presenting it as representative of the majority of Americans, especially with how he dismisses exceptions as "You and your best friend".
So basically, "who is he to judge?" is what you're getting at. Am I right? And it's more like he's saying that he knows what he's saying doesn't apply to everyone, but he can't say there are exceptions every time he changes topic. Saying he's dismissing them makes it sound like he's saying there are no exceptions.
And an opinion can be inaccurate. There can be opinions about what is true and those can be inaccurate in what the holder of the opinion believes.
I'm having trouble grasping this, so let me describe a hypothetical situation to see if I have this right. Let's say someone says they believe the fact "the moon is made of rock" is false. That's the opinion. But we know the moon landing is made of rock due to various things, such as the moon landing. That would make it inaccurate. Am I following what you just told me correctly?
Yes, their belief is inaccurate. That would be my position on it.
In that case, what's being described is not an opinion; it's a misconception. It's not the same thing. Also you may want to check my last post; I edited it a bit and you may want to look it over, since you missed part of my argument.
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion

No, it's an opinion. If you're going to claim it's not at least provide grounds for it.

I edited mine as well to address it.
misconception: a false idea or belief
From the Merriam-Webster website: http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/misconception
I had to look in the thesaurus to find that because, for some reason, looking for the word in the site's dictionary just leads me to the definitions for just its prefix. Don't believe me? Try it yourself.
Bad argument. The problem is that you've proven that the word misconception would apply, but that doesn't prove that the word opinion does not. Nothing says they must automatically be mutually exclusive.
The definition you provided for "opinion" says:

a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty
"On grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty." In other words, if any one person can take someone's opinion and prove it wrong, it's not an opinion.

Also, I don't see any editing.
No, not really. I'm just saying that he is making a claim that is implied to be about the majority of Americans since he treats exceptions to his points as being the rare ones. And that's a kind of a big claim. That some fall in each of these is true I'm sure. But the majority?
Yeah, thanks. I found I was looking at the wrong post.

So yeah. What you're saying here simply means you disagree about who the majority is. Is that correct?
 

Dragonpit

New member
Nov 10, 2010
637
0
0
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Okay, that's all well and good that you don't necessarily agree with the original post (if it could be called such), but this is a personal essay, meaning it's highly opinionated. It literally reeks of his own experiences and perceptions; it's the whole point.
Lecturing people based on your biased personal experiences is not a very good point to have. If he's going to lecture someone he should try to be at least a bit objective and accurate about it instead of just sounding full of himself.
I was going to say, "It's not a lecture", but I had the foresight to check the article first before doing so. So instead, I'm going to say that the author is making generalizations like you mentioned, and the author himself knows it. He's made it clear that he knows they don't apply to everyone just before his little list. So what I'm wondering about is what you expect with this in mind. Do you want him to acknowledge every single exception in the world in his article? (I'm actually not trying to sound condescending, so I apologize in advance if I come off at such.) I mean, you don't have to agree with him, like I said. I just can't help but think you're being somewhat unreasonable.
He's lecturing the country in general. Saying "Oh it only applies to most people" doesn't magically make it immune from criticism. I'd argue it doesn't necessarily even apply to most. Furthermore some of my complaints have to do with more than just it being a generalization.
Agreed. It doesn't make it immune to criticism. That's why I said you didn't have to agree. As for it not applying to most, that could just be your experience. Doesn't make you wrong, but it doesn't make him wrong, either.
Considering he's the one making sweeping claims I think that's more of a problem for him than me. He's more or less saying "Most Americans are like X. I know because of the people I've encountered" and I'm replying "Not most of the ones I've met". Which is going to be more of a problem for him because he's trying to claim Americans are a certain way.
I get the impression that you missed the point; he doesn't have to prove his generalizations. Yes, it's self-indulgent and arrogant, but that's the whole point to generalizations. Again, you don't have to agree with them.
No, he doesn't have to but I can still call him on it as a flaw in his position. And it doesn't matter if that's the point to generalizations(a claim that I think is just bullshit), that doesn't defend them.

That aside, I can see you're not just making complaints about the generalization (by the way, comfort and happiness may be linked, but they are not the same thing. A person can be comfortable, but not happy. The author is not wrong in treating them separately here), but as I reread your post, I noticed more often than not, you are responding to a generalization the author made, and often it was with an exceptionally dismissive attitude. You didn't exactly support your argument against his.
Why do I need to support instead of just saying "Well your proof isn't very good because all you have are experiences and mine differ"? It's not as if I'm claiming Americans are mostly a certain way. He's making the sweeping claims, he has much more to defend. I don't exactly need to provide more evidence than he does if I'm just trying to say his evidence to support his claims is questionable.
Well, then I'm confused about the intent behind your complaints. Are you trying to disprove his argument, get him to improve his argument, or do you just simply disagree with him?
I'm pointing out his argument his shit because it is not properly supported, amongst other things. Pointing out flaws in it is all I am doing.
I wasn't aware he was supposed to defend his generalizations. I mean, defending them would effectively change the very nature of his article. It'd wouldn't be a list centered around his viewpoints anymore; it'd be an argument defending those viewpoints, which he wasn't trying to write in the first place. You can still call him out on it, but it seems to be very misplaced here.
If someone is making an argument that seems quite possibly inaccurate, why should I not call them out on it? Sure it's not exactly the place for him to prove it. Doesn't mean that it isn't a valid criticism that there's no particularly good reason to believe him, does it?
That's just it; he's not making an argument. It's a list based around his own conjectures. An opinion can be called misinformed (and no, I'm not saying you can't call him out on it or that you have to believe him), but not inaccurate. That's entirely why I'm saying you don't have to agree. Or are you saying this piece was intended to be a factual piece instead of an opinionated one?
He seems to be presenting it as representative of the majority of Americans, especially with how he dismisses exceptions as "You and your best friend".
So basically, "who is he to judge?" is what you're getting at. Am I right? And it's more like he's saying that he knows what he's saying doesn't apply to everyone, but he can't say there are exceptions every time he changes topic. Saying he's dismissing them makes it sound like he's saying there are no exceptions.
And an opinion can be inaccurate. There can be opinions about what is true and those can be inaccurate in what the holder of the opinion believes.
I'm having trouble grasping this, so let me describe a hypothetical situation to see if I have this right. Let's say someone says they believe the fact "the moon is made of rock" is false. That's the opinion. But we know the moon landing is made of rock due to various things, such as the moon landing. That would make it inaccurate. Am I following what you just told me correctly?
Yes, their belief is inaccurate. That would be my position on it.
In that case, what's being described is not an opinion; it's a misconception. It's not the same thing. Also you may want to check my last post; I edited it a bit and you may want to look it over, since you missed part of my argument.
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion

No, it's an opinion. If you're going to claim it's not at least provide grounds for it.

I edited mine as well to address it.
misconception: a false idea or belief
From the Merriam-Webster website: http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/misconception
I had to look in the thesaurus to find that because, for some reason, looking for the word in the site's dictionary just leads me to the definitions for just its prefix. Don't believe me? Try it yourself.
Bad argument. The problem is that you've proven that the word misconception would apply, but that doesn't prove that the word opinion does not. Nothing says they must automatically be mutually exclusive.
The definition you provided for "opinion" says:

a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty
"On grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty." In other words, if any one person can take someone's opinion and prove it wrong, it's not an opinion.
Fine, whatever. Then if you insist on this I'll say it was presented as an opinion but seems like a misconception.
Fair enough.

Also, I don't see any editing.
No, not really. I'm just saying that he is making a claim that is implied to be about the majority of Americans since he treats exceptions to his points as being the rare ones. And that's a kind of a big claim. That some fall in each of these is true I'm sure. But the majority?
Yeah, thanks. I found I was looking at the wrong post.

So yeah. What you're saying here simply means you disagree about who the majority is. Is that correct?
Yes, more or less. Or at the very least saying his grounds for apparently claiming the majority are very poor.
Then what I'm wondering now is why some of your rebuttals to the original post seemed so needlessly sarcastic.
 

Ryan Hughes

New member
Jul 10, 2012
557
0
0
Yassen said:
1. Few People Are Impressed By Us
True enough, but on a recent trip to China, as an American, I was warmly welcomed at many places. Especially by children and teens, as I was likely the first white person that they had ever seen. No less than four people wanted to take a picture with me, just to have a picture of themselves with a white dude.

Sure, most are not impressed, but that does not mean that they are not friendly either.

2. Few People Hate Us

Despite the occasional eye-rolling, and complete inability to understand why anyone would vote for George W. Bush, people from other countries don?t hate us either.
And Americans can roll their eyes and wonder why in the world anyone would vote for Sylvio Berlesconi. While Bush was by no means a good president, at least he was not a raving philanderer who had affairs with underage belly-dancers.

3. We Know Nothing About The Rest Of The World

For all of our talk about being global leaders and how everyone follows us, we don?t seem to know much about our supposed ?followers.? Here were some brain-stumpers for me: the Vietnamese believe the Vietnam War was about China (not us), Hitler was primarily defeated by Russia (not us), Native Americans were wiped out by a plague (not us), and the American Revolution was ?won? because the British cared more about beating France (not us). Notice a running theme here?
For the Vietnamese, there were no real breaks from conflict after WWII. The Japanese were left in an occupying position, even after they surrendered, causing our former ally Ho Chi Min to rebel against them. The Japanese left and the French took over, followed by the Americans, when French sentiments turned towards anti-Asian colonialism, so they could focus on Algiers and the economic colonialism of the rest of Europe instead.

Hitler was defeated by an allied force, including the UK, US and USSR. Actually, Stalin mishandled the situation very badly, and if not for the allied attacks on western Europe, Stalin's defense-in-depth strategy would have failed when the Blitzkrieg took Moscow. After signing a non-aggression treaty with Hitler shortly after the invasion of Poland, Hitler's SS faked evidence of widespread dissent within the Russian Military, and allowed that "evidence" to be captured by the GRU. Stalin promptly decimated his own officer corps by executing the innocent people he suspected of being involved with dissension. This was all done as the Nazi had planned to invade Russia from the beginning, after they had finished with western Europe. And this is only one case of Stalin's ineptitude, I could go on.

Native American populations were decimated by both illness and various armies. they lacked the immune systems necessary to fight off many European diseases, even ones that were seen to be common. Picking up on this, those following the tenants of manifest destiny would infect blankets with chicken pox and other diseases, then give them to the Natives as a show of peace. Again, I could go on, but suffice it to say that just because a Native American was not killed with a gun does not mean that European and American powers were not at fault.
5. The Quality of Life For The Average American Is Not That Great

If you?re extremely talented or intelligent, the US is probably the best place in the world to live. The system is stacked heavily to allow people of talent and advantage to rise to the top quickly.
Well, I can think of worse places to live. But this is simply not true, as America is as guilty as any other country of confusing capitalism with meritocracy, as per the line by John Steinbeck, an American:
The problem with the US is that everyone thinks they are of talent and advantage. As John Steinbeck famously said, the problem with poor Americans is that ?they don?t believe they?re poor, but rather temporarily embarrassed millionaires.?
Though honestly that misrepresents what Steinbeck was saying, especially in light of the fact that he was a non-Marxist socialist, but again, I could go on. . .
6. The Rest Of The World Is Not A Slum-Ridden Shithole Compared To Us

Singapore is pristine. Hong Kong makes Manhattan look like a suburb.
Singapore is a nice place. After the bloodless revolution in 2000 that brought real democracy to the country, they cleaned up the City-State quite well, and succeeded in running out much of the Heroin trafickers in the country. Though, lingering corruption and crime still exist there, and they have a serious problem with water acquisition, it is still one of the best examples of what a bloodless revolution can do. And I would hope that Hong Kong would make Manhattan look like a suburb, what with its crime rate being high enough to make a Harlem Drug pusher think twice before moving there.
Sweden and South Korea have more advanced high speed internet networks. Japan has the most advanced trains and transportation systems. Norwegians make more money. The biggest and most advanced plane in the world is flown out of Singapore. The tallest buildings in the world are now in Dubai and Shanghai. Meanwhile, the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world.
And Japan has the highest rate of homelessness among major economic powers. South Korea was basically a dictatorship until 1988, when the public attention brought by the Seoul games forced a relaxation of the ruling party's grip. Sweden and Norway sit on some of the last major untapped oil reserves, and they utilize them wisely, rather than coughing them all up for profit like in Saudi Arabia. And the US has the highest incarceration rate among countries that can be trusted to both (A) accurately report their rates, unlike China, and (B) can be counted on to enforce their own laws because their police and legal systems are not completely corrupt. Every country has its problems, and America has more than its fair share, but no nation is perfect either. At least America is not yet to the point where we are locking up political dissenters. Not yet anyway. . .
7. We?re Paranoid

Not only are we emotionally insecure as a culture, but I?ve come to realize how paranoid we are about our physical security.

In the US, security trumps everything, even liberty. We?re paranoid.
And we have a history of overcoming that paranoia. To quote FDR: "the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." and Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Sure, it would do well to remember this from time to time, but our culture, overall, has shown what I think is a strong resilience to cowardice. Our current fascination with security over liberty is something of a passing fad.
8. We?re Status-Obsessed And Seek Attention

I?ve noticed that the way we Americans communicate is usually designed to create a lot of attention and hype. Again, I think this is a product of our consumer culture: the belief that something isn?t worthwhile or important unless it?s perceived to be the best (BEST EVER!!!) or unless it gets a lot of attention (see: every reality-television show ever made).

This is why Americans have a peculiar habit of thinking everything is ?totally awesome,? and even the most mundane activities were ?the best thing ever!? It?s the unconscious drive we share for importance and significance, this unmentioned belief, socially beaten into us since birth that if we?re not the best at something, then we don?t matter.
Here, the author is just straight up confusing the American media with the culture it is supposed to represent. When was the last time you met an American that actually though the media to be an accurate representation of what it is like to be a real American? Because I doubt that I have ever met one. In fact, you can hardly get away from people criticizing the media here in America, and much of that is quite justified, not all of course, but a lot.

Of course the media is given to hyperbole, that is how they sell products. While I think more can be done to educate people, especially kids, about the media and help make them into critical thinkers rather than blind consumers, often people I meet here are media-savy to begin with. Superficial people are often the exception, rather than commonplace.
10. We Mistake Comfort For Happiness

The United States is a country built on the exaltation of economic growth and personal ingenuity. Small businesses and constant growth are celebrated and supported above all else ? above affordable health care, above respectable education, above everything. Americans believe it?s your responsibility to take care of yourself and make something of yourself, not the state?s, not your community?s, not even your friend?s or family?s in some instances.
No, as I said, we confuse capitalism with meritocracy. Ingenuity and affordable health care are not mutually exclusive, they are not opposite in any way, and there is no reason we cannot have both. In fact, by implying that "growth" and the other things listed can even be compared to one another, the author is confusing capital and merit.
Throughout history, every dominant civilization eventually collapsed because it became TOO successful. What made it powerful and unique grows out of proportion and consumes its society.
Here is a quote from Og Mandino, an American: "What is success other than a state of mind?" Defining success in any other way is simply absurd. "Too successful?" "Growing out of proportion?" All nations have to face systemic corruption, and all powerful societies have fallen because of it, not because they were too "successful," or they were out of "proportion." Well, the average life span of nations, looking through history, is about 250-500 years, give or take. The US is approaching the 250 mark, but that does not mean we are done for. There are exceptions to this, and maybe the US can pull itself together and last another 250 years or more. The thing that I am most afraid of if the US fails or loses its place in the world, are the people who will inevitably blame our downfall on racial integration. Look at the most recent French elections, some 30% of the vote was cast for openly racist candidates. There is one thing that America does better than anyone, and that is racial integration.
 

Dragonpit

New member
Nov 10, 2010
637
0
0
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Dragonpit said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Okay, that's all well and good that you don't necessarily agree with the original post (if it could be called such), but this is a personal essay, meaning it's highly opinionated. It literally reeks of his own experiences and perceptions; it's the whole point.
Lecturing people based on your biased personal experiences is not a very good point to have. If he's going to lecture someone he should try to be at least a bit objective and accurate about it instead of just sounding full of himself.
I was going to say, "It's not a lecture", but I had the foresight to check the article first before doing so. So instead, I'm going to say that the author is making generalizations like you mentioned, and the author himself knows it. He's made it clear that he knows they don't apply to everyone just before his little list. So what I'm wondering about is what you expect with this in mind. Do you want him to acknowledge every single exception in the world in his article? (I'm actually not trying to sound condescending, so I apologize in advance if I come off at such.) I mean, you don't have to agree with him, like I said. I just can't help but think you're being somewhat unreasonable.
He's lecturing the country in general. Saying "Oh it only applies to most people" doesn't magically make it immune from criticism. I'd argue it doesn't necessarily even apply to most. Furthermore some of my complaints have to do with more than just it being a generalization.
Agreed. It doesn't make it immune to criticism. That's why I said you didn't have to agree. As for it not applying to most, that could just be your experience. Doesn't make you wrong, but it doesn't make him wrong, either.
Considering he's the one making sweeping claims I think that's more of a problem for him than me. He's more or less saying "Most Americans are like X. I know because of the people I've encountered" and I'm replying "Not most of the ones I've met". Which is going to be more of a problem for him because he's trying to claim Americans are a certain way.
I get the impression that you missed the point; he doesn't have to prove his generalizations. Yes, it's self-indulgent and arrogant, but that's the whole point to generalizations. Again, you don't have to agree with them.
No, he doesn't have to but I can still call him on it as a flaw in his position. And it doesn't matter if that's the point to generalizations(a claim that I think is just bullshit), that doesn't defend them.

That aside, I can see you're not just making complaints about the generalization (by the way, comfort and happiness may be linked, but they are not the same thing. A person can be comfortable, but not happy. The author is not wrong in treating them separately here), but as I reread your post, I noticed more often than not, you are responding to a generalization the author made, and often it was with an exceptionally dismissive attitude. You didn't exactly support your argument against his.
Why do I need to support instead of just saying "Well your proof isn't very good because all you have are experiences and mine differ"? It's not as if I'm claiming Americans are mostly a certain way. He's making the sweeping claims, he has much more to defend. I don't exactly need to provide more evidence than he does if I'm just trying to say his evidence to support his claims is questionable.
Well, then I'm confused about the intent behind your complaints. Are you trying to disprove his argument, get him to improve his argument, or do you just simply disagree with him?
I'm pointing out his argument his shit because it is not properly supported, amongst other things. Pointing out flaws in it is all I am doing.
I wasn't aware he was supposed to defend his generalizations. I mean, defending them would effectively change the very nature of his article. It'd wouldn't be a list centered around his viewpoints anymore; it'd be an argument defending those viewpoints, which he wasn't trying to write in the first place. You can still call him out on it, but it seems to be very misplaced here.
If someone is making an argument that seems quite possibly inaccurate, why should I not call them out on it? Sure it's not exactly the place for him to prove it. Doesn't mean that it isn't a valid criticism that there's no particularly good reason to believe him, does it?
That's just it; he's not making an argument. It's a list based around his own conjectures. An opinion can be called misinformed (and no, I'm not saying you can't call him out on it or that you have to believe him), but not inaccurate. That's entirely why I'm saying you don't have to agree. Or are you saying this piece was intended to be a factual piece instead of an opinionated one?
He seems to be presenting it as representative of the majority of Americans, especially with how he dismisses exceptions as "You and your best friend".
So basically, "who is he to judge?" is what you're getting at. Am I right? And it's more like he's saying that he knows what he's saying doesn't apply to everyone, but he can't say there are exceptions every time he changes topic. Saying he's dismissing them makes it sound like he's saying there are no exceptions.
And an opinion can be inaccurate. There can be opinions about what is true and those can be inaccurate in what the holder of the opinion believes.
I'm having trouble grasping this, so let me describe a hypothetical situation to see if I have this right. Let's say someone says they believe the fact "the moon is made of rock" is false. That's the opinion. But we know the moon landing is made of rock due to various things, such as the moon landing. That would make it inaccurate. Am I following what you just told me correctly?
Yes, their belief is inaccurate. That would be my position on it.
In that case, what's being described is not an opinion; it's a misconception. It's not the same thing. Also you may want to check my last post; I edited it a bit and you may want to look it over, since you missed part of my argument.
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion

No, it's an opinion. If you're going to claim it's not at least provide grounds for it.

I edited mine as well to address it.
misconception: a false idea or belief
From the Merriam-Webster website: http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/misconception
I had to look in the thesaurus to find that because, for some reason, looking for the word in the site's dictionary just leads me to the definitions for just its prefix. Don't believe me? Try it yourself.
Bad argument. The problem is that you've proven that the word misconception would apply, but that doesn't prove that the word opinion does not. Nothing says they must automatically be mutually exclusive.
The definition you provided for "opinion" says:

a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty
"On grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty." In other words, if any one person can take someone's opinion and prove it wrong, it's not an opinion.
Fine, whatever. Then if you insist on this I'll say it was presented as an opinion but seems like a misconception.
Fair enough.

Also, I don't see any editing.
No, not really. I'm just saying that he is making a claim that is implied to be about the majority of Americans since he treats exceptions to his points as being the rare ones. And that's a kind of a big claim. That some fall in each of these is true I'm sure. But the majority?
Yeah, thanks. I found I was looking at the wrong post.

So yeah. What you're saying here simply means you disagree about who the majority is. Is that correct?
Yes, more or less. Or at the very least saying his grounds for apparently claiming the majority are very poor.
Then what I'm wondering now is why some of your rebuttals to the original post seemed so needlessly sarcastic.
I thought the assessment was kind of stupid. Generally my disdain for something appears as sarcasm.
Guess so.
 

JoesshittyOs

New member
Aug 10, 2011
1,965
0
0
Not only do I know everything on this list and disagree, I'd say about nearly every person I know (I'd even be so willing to go as far and say every person on my Facebook) knows these things/ Completely disagrees with them.

For one, "poor at expressing gratitude"? Yeah, I say 'go fuck yourself' to a good friend of mine when he out rolls me in bowling. I never say hi to anyone like that, and once again can vouch for nearly everyone I know.

And you know that "Obesity Epidemic" the news has been going on about? I'd say most people who have been near a television in the past decade knows that we're not that healthy of a country.

"Knows nothing about the rest of the world". Generalizations of the greatest type. Pretty much all this article has been, to be honest. (And for your info, Russia barely stepped foot in any of German occupied territory. They pretty much just defended the homeland. I don't mean to belittle anyone else's part in the war, but the US was behind nearly every major counter offensive)

Anyways, I'm glad to see that there are a few other people in this thread taking issue with this. Whoever wrote this article needs to either get out of Retardville, or just plain stop basing his writings off of generalizations and borderline offensive stereotypes.
 

floppylobster

New member
Oct 22, 2008
1,528
0
0
Some people have taken issue with various points but it seems the one thing nobody really denies is -

"3. We Know Nothing About The Rest Of The World"
 

Kathinka

New member
Jan 17, 2010
1,141
0
0
Ryan Hughes said:
if not for the allied attacks on western Europe, Stalin's defense-in-depth strategy would have failed when the Blitzkrieg took Moscow. After signing a non-aggression treaty with Hitler shortly after the invasion of Poland, Hitler's SS faked evidence of widespread dissent within the Russian Military, and allowed that "evidence" to be captured by the GRU. Stalin promptly decimated his own officer corps by executing the innocent people he suspected of being involved with dissension. This was all done as the Nazi had planned to invade Russia from the beginning, after they had finished with western Europe. And this is only one case of Stalin's ineptitude, I could go on.
just going to adres that point because it is so painfully wrong on so many levels that it makes my teeth hurt.

the attack on moscow was broken in late 41, long before any offensive allied undertakings. it's majorly agreed on by historians that after winter 42, so roughly 2 years before the allied invasion of normandy, the war was pretty much done and over. stalingrad and kursk had brought the decision long before any major allied attacks.
and even after that, the western front was tiny and near meaningles compared to the eastern one, dwarfed in both scale and relevance.

also the implication of hitler in the purgings is..speculative, at best.

of course, history tought today in america is pretty scewed against actual facts. teaching the reality of that russia did 90% of the heavy lifting didn't sound good in cold war classrooms, and that sentiment persists until today.

JoesshittyOs said:
"Knows nothing about the rest of the world". Generalizations of the greatest type. Pretty much all this article has been, to be honest. (And for your info, Russia barely stepped foot in any of German occupied territory. They pretty much just defended the homeland. I don't mean to belittle anyone else's part in the war, but the US was behind nearly every major counter offensive)
cograts, you have just singlehandedly proven the third point AND deconstructed your own point...jesus christ, i mean..pick up a history book. ANY history book. seriously, that line "Russia barely stepped foot in any of German occupied territory. They pretty much just defended the homeland. I don't mean to belittle anyone else's part in the war, but the US was behind nearly every major counter offensive" is just DISGUSTINGLY wrong.
 

Gatx

New member
Jul 7, 2011
1,458
0
0
I got the impression from the internet has been that a good portion of foreigners hate Americans because Americans think the reverse of some of the things on that list.

I have to wonder why it always seems to be Americans that need stuff pointed out to them (you're country's not so great, etc. etc.) Are other countries just more self-aware or something?
 

Old Father Eternity

New member
Aug 6, 2010
481
0
0
Granted I may not have travelled as extensively but I have been through most of Europe and I have even been to the States and I have even worked for a while in a job where I had to deal with tourists.
Judging by personal experience, some of these things could on various degrees be applied to other nations as well and while there have been very pleasant exceptions to these generalisations ( as per individual contact ), most of these hold true for your average person.

Despite being generalisations and your personal experience may well be different, why in the blazing hell do you people feel the need to get so damn offended, I can understand the annoyance but for fuck sake, move on.
 

electronicgoat

New member
Feb 20, 2011
110
0
0
I'd take down 4, 5, and 8. I don't see how they could possibly have rational explanations, and seem to be blatant generalizations that you aren't qualified to make based on your established "American knowledge".
 

Marowit

New member
Nov 7, 2006
1,271
0
0
Imp Emissary said:
Marowit said:
You're right, the 10+ years of medical/surgical training I do after undergrad shouldn't be reimbursed at all. You provide a compelling alternative...?
Yes, a doctors education is very expensive, long, and will probably put someone in the red for years after it's all done (unless your parents are rich as hell and pay for your education, or you're like that nine year old kid who already was successfully performing surgeries). Also, your education never really ends, and you have to continuously keep up with all the new information. Not just so you can continue practicing in the medical fields, but so you don't use outdated techniques that are not as effective as new ones/that are more dangerous.

That said, from a patient's perspective it does seem a bit stupid that to get a leg fixed I have to pay with one of my arms. Don't get me wrong. Doctors get financially f@#ked too by the whole deal, but surely there must be a middle way in all this.

If medical services cost less the hospital would make less on each patient, but because of the lower cost wouldn't they see more business? And to help doctors themselves out couldn't we try by making education less expensive so they won't need to charge such high prices just so they can live while trying to slowly pay off their school loans?

Yes, just bringing up the problem and saying, "If we do Y we won't have to worry about X", but if keep the problem fresh in peoples minds and keep people talking about it we increase that chance of finding a solution. That's not just optimism, (I am a positive pessimist myself), that is just statistics, and logic. All that said, it is a possibility that there is no solution, and we're all just screwed. But I don't think that's the case, not yet.
Volume isn't our problem - in the u.s. the are, for almost every specialty, too few physicians. It is possible that volume could help, but then you open another, dirty door with quality of care issues.

Here's an example of what you're talking about - you have one gastroenterologist, 2-3 ORs. You can set it up so that one doc, soon as he puts down his scope he can walk into the next room and start another endoscopy/colonoscopy and churn through 40-50 procedures a day. It makes it so the studies are generally sloppy, because you have to pump through the patients. It makes it so clinic days you spend even less time per patient, but you make a killing in billing...is that the kind of system you'd like to see? One where there is even more incentive placed on procedural turn over, and not quality of care? I realize this isn't offering a good alternative, but to be frank, I don't know what one could be. It costs a lot to train us.

Sure, lowering the cost of our education would help a ton, but then again, the way of maximizing our earning potential rests in procedural turn over - you can't bill effectively for counseling and patient education - even though these things can significantly alter a patients life in the same way removing a gallbladder can...I guess the only difference is a gallbladder pays better....