10 Things Most Americans Don?t Know About America

[Agayek]

I said the British won the war of 1812, not the War of Independence. The British didn't really want anything to do with America by 1812, so when they won, they just let the Americans go.

It's less that and more "Napoleon is wrecking shit; it's not worth the time, men and money to re-establish British rule in the US when the French are about to put it in our butt".

 

[Dragonpit]

-snip-

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?

 

[Carlos Storm]

My apologies, I forget that many people here were educated in American schools and do not have basic reading comprehension.

This.

This to almost every Comment made in this thread so far.

OT: I actually read the whole thing all the way through, and while a lot of them were so general as to be applied to many other countries, it was still at least an entertaining read, thank you for helping me stave off boredom for a few hours.

 

[malestrithe]

These are all fairly straightforward observations that anyone could guess whether they've been to foreign countries or not.

There isn't even enough here that deserves a more in depth analysis.

 

[Xman490]

Being reminded of this makes me want to help bring this nation back up to European standards.

That IS going to happen, right? Right?

 

[ultrachicken]

I thought this would have some historical information or some stats that people don't already know, but instead I get generalizations and the typical "America sucks! Boo!" sentiment that so many Americans have.

Author, it's cool that you don't want to live in the US, but don't pretend that people don't know this shit.

 

[Dragonpit]

-snip-

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.

[/quote]
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?

 

[AuronFtw]

ITT: people responding to troll post.

Guy linked no stats, cited no sources, just spewed bullshit from his POV and tried to pass it off as truth. The best thing you can do to trolls is ignore them.

 

[Carlos Storm]

My apologies, I forget that many people here were educated in American schools and do not have basic reading comprehension.

This.

This to almost every Comment made in this thread so far.

And even after shit like this, people wonder why America has such a problem with the rest of the world...

Find the rest of the world on a map and I might have a little more respect for America.

America's top 5% students ranked 23rd out of 29 developed countries, our assertions about your education system are not unfounded.

 

[Dragonpit]

-snip-

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.