Mom says I get to post the “shit on the US” thread tomorrow!
Humanity is doomed because of America. Your anti-environmental capitalism and rapacious foreign policy have altered the world in an entirely negative way, and the only realistic scenario for the US to cut this shit out is by losing a war to a major competitor, such as China. China is hugely flawed itself, but is the less harmful option imo.
China pollutes way more than the US though and are far less transparent about it.
I’m not holding China up as some panacea, it’s very far from perfect (e.g. authoritarian security state, denial of Taiwanese independence, etc.), but i do think it does less net harm than the US. I would also suggest that the things we criticise China for are things which we would overlook in a country which was perceived as less of a threat to western dominance.
In any case, i was trying to say not that i want the US to be like China, but rather that i think the only way to prevent the US from killing us all is through a radical change of attitude, most likely caused by the loss of a major conflict.
The down votes are coming from inside the
housecountry!Haha, yes, i think so. Although it can’t be easy when it feels like the rest of the world (well, lemmy) is piling on to talk shit about your country
No they don’t, what are you talking about?
I lived there for many years. Trust me, they do.
What does you living there have to do with it? They objectively don’t.
Everyday I was there I had to wear a mask and I developed asthma. Believe whatever you want.
They’re also modernizing faster than us. They’ll be green first.
They literally just built like 9 coal plants last year…
It also has about 4x the population, and doesn’t pollute 4x more.
Plus it’s still the largest manufacturing hub in the world. Europe would pollute a lot more if we hadn’t exported a lot of (some might say too much) of our industry to the developing world and China over the last 50 years.
tankie take
If that’s your takeaway, you’ve missed the point. Well done.
Thanks! Happy New Year
But your point was that China is better than the US because… well because apparently it is.
No it wasn’t. Overall points:
- something is needed to radically halt US destruction of the world. I can’t think of anything which will achieve this short of a lost war. China is, afaik, the only potential enemy capable of inflicting this loss on the US.
- i have no love but China (see my other comments in this thread), but objectively its existence has been less harmful to the rest of the world than that of the US.
Calling that a ‘tankie take’ is low effort shit which contributes nothing to the discussion. In any case, I’m pretty sure tankies are apologists for all the bad stuff China does, so not sure i fit into that category, babybus.
i have no love but China
“But I said that it’s good even though nobody asked about China.”
Yeah, sure…
Despite his severe back problems, Luigi mangione is the only one of you who has a backbone.
Donald Trump is the new US President, and you’re responsible.
ITT: As per usual, Lemmy thinks living in conditions and condoning them are the same thing
The root of their problems is not political or politicians it’s greedy capitalism. Arguably it’s also the root of their morally ambiguous success.
The US is not the “role model” for how a country should be or what a strong democracy is. Other countries aren’t inspired by or jealous of you.
I mean, we generally know the first part. The second isn’t really a surprise either.
Then why do you sound like you are
Because thats what you’ve been brainwashed to think the world wants, so thats what you hear
lol
Believe me there’s no shortage of people who know that were not the shining city on the hill, unfortunately we’re drowned out by pandering patriotic country music and gunfire from mass shootings.
This clip from the Newsroom sums it up perfectly.
I like the clip, but IMO they basically bailed out in the end by all the nonsense quoted from the ~3:25 mark on.
Jeff basically makes it sound like the US used to be incredibly self-aware, humble, kind, and well-administrated, but I think what most Americans don’t choose to understand is that since the very settling of the continent, it’s been a highly fraught, contentious situation, much of it characterised by greed, cruelty, violence, intolerance and self-righteousness.
Now yes, from what I understand of history, under FDR we more or less hit a peak of being a well-run, progressive country, on the level of many modern Euro countries more or less, but most of that was specifically in response to the utter disaster of the Great Depression and the need to adjust powerfully, swiftly and accurately. Meanwhile, IIRC during his presidency, there was in fact a right-wing movement intending to remove him by underhanded means.
So I like the hopefulness of the clip, but in the end I also find it pretty typical of Americans being largely unwilling to understand the hows and whys of the nation, going back to the early 1600’s.
Eh, sorry for the dang essay. :S
Man I forgot how good that show was
Many, if not most, of us are jealous of other countries, though. Really, this is only a hard truth for the MAGA crowd, and even that is (I think) largely the fault of the nationalist propaganda that’s been shoveled at us since we were kids.
As an American, I agree with you, though - the US is in no way a ‘strong democracy’, or much of a democracy at all. It may once have been, but it certainly hasn’t been the case for a long time.
Back in 1780s the US constitution was an absolute marvel of progressiveness, but today, it is increadibly outdated and keeps the US political system back from making progress.
We’re like the 40-year-old still wearing his school jacket and talking about winning state.
Four touchdowns in a single game, go Bundy!
But we’re really a used car salesman trying to get you to finance a clapped out Nissan Altima with 128k miles, failing clear coat, and a dented bumper.
Not most unfortunately, that I learned a couple months ago. Most think their squalor is somehow peak civilization
No shit, what American thinks either are true?
America, fuck yeah!
Has been a joke for like 30 years now
The irony is rooted in reality, much like the stereotypes.
I’ve received quite a few hostile reactions when critiquing the US, including idiocy like “FU we have a bigger military” from blowhards.
There are, unfortunately, enough bad apples to spoil the bushel.
You haven’t met much of the rural population, have you?
Literally the opposite…
Where are you see conservatives talking about how great America has been under Bidnen?
Like, you put zero thinking into your comment, just like you assume the people you’re “dunking on” do.
You’re a different side of the same coin, that’s never meant opposites, you’re th same thing.
Just neither sid bis smart enough to figure it out, and both think only the other side is dumb
This. Conservatives have poor media literacy. They don’t understand that they’re the punchline in stuff like that. They miss the point of stuff like RoboCop and Starship Troopers and unironically like those movies for the action and don’t even recognize the social commentary. They watched Team America and guffawed into their 24 packs of light beer at every shallow joke without recognizing that the jokes were intentionally shallow to point out what an idiot would think is a good joke. It’s like the TV show in Idiocracy. The real joke is below the surface.
I used to watch Colbert Report with my dad and it took him years to realize that it was a parody mocking him often personally. My dad was not a dumb man. The conservative bubble is hard to pop. Its like a Stockholm syndrome victim sympathizing with their attacker.
It blows my mind that when Colbert got his new job he had people coming up to him for years saying they liked his old show better.
They liked his old show, The Colbert Report, better. When it was clearly satire.
His old show was better. But I can’t imagine it working well any more, when reality is already so absurd.
There are different dimensions of dumb.
Your traffic laws are weird.
-
Overtaking/passing on the right
-
4 way stops and whoever comes first can go
-
No strict right of way when coming from the right
-
Right on red
-
Grinding all traffic in all directions over multiple lanes to a stop when a school bus stops
At least the last one I can understand a little with the nearly non-existent pedestrian infrastructure.
A note, not all states operate this way, but the concept of ‘right of way’ is going away. Judges do not like the idea of someone feeling privileged enough to make a situation worse. In general, they want to implement fail-safes and not fail-unsafe situations.
Edit: To add - we’ve actually had this for a while, it’s called ‘failure to yield’. The switch is actually being more driven by emergency services making things worse, which is kind of relieving given the general sentiment. Unfortunately it’s just another phrase for the same thing, semantics…but if you do go to court, you’re better off presenting who failed vs who’s entitled.
I think I have seen this and been confused by it. Does it mean that nobody should assume they have right of way? For example, having right of way isn’t necessarily an excuse for being in an accident because you didn’t give way to someone driving badly.
If a person didn’t yield at a sign saying they should, and caused an accident as a result, they are demonstrably at fault.
Pretty much, the only caveat I’d add is the assumption of ‘right of way’. You can have situations where road conditions were unusual but drivers are not certain to all the conditions. The involved parties can all assume they have the ‘right of way’, when in reality the best option would have been for everyone to yield until conditions ARE certain.
I’ll give a personal example: I once came upon an accident on a bridge, and the cop cars were already on the scene. It was night, raining hard and the cop cars were facing the oncoming lane with headlights set to high. I couldn’t see anything past the cop cars, so I slowed down from 50 to 25. As I passed, I briefly saw a shadow of a person and heard them say “SLOW DOWN”. I still have no idea how close I was to hitting them, but they must have been very close to hear them thru the rain and sirens. I should have gone much, much slower, maybe even stopped. Fortunately, nothing bad happened, but I had assumed that since the one lane was open that it was ok to use. I don’t know why the cop cars oriented themselves in a way to blind oncoming drivers, but had something happened, the fault would have ultimately been mine regardless.
Another example is parking lots, so many accidents occur at busy locations. People forget how you are not supposed to block ingress (to prevent traffic backing up into the street and making things worse) and get road rage because they can’t leave. I’ve seen people try to “squeeze in” and end up blocking an entire lot because they can’t move. One side will say “zipper” (ie: “my turn for RoW”) the other will say “right of way”, and parking lots are notorious for not having any signs.
Edit: and ofc, old ladies who think blinkers give them RoW
Edit2: an example for cops: blowing thru red lights without making sure intersections are clear. To be fair, everyone should yield to a cop car in the performance of their duties, but this doesn’t mean cop cars get a free pass for RoW and can plow thru full speed, damn the consequences. They still have to take safety of others in mind and yield if required.
Edit3: because I’ve had the discussion before. Yes, it’s semantics. RoW and FTY are the same thing. I’m only saying the phrase is being sunsetted, no Judge wants to hear someone say RoW. Some laws even use them together as “Failure to Yield Right of Way”. The goal is to prevent the mindset of entitlement, to make sure the clarity of safeguards remain in place.
Honestly right on red is so stupid. So many people don’t even slow down and they just go. Sometimes I’ll be waiting to turn right at red light and some dickhead in a behemoth truck behind me will start spamming their horn like they think I have the right away and can just mow down whichever pedestrians are in the crosswalk. I bike a lot and I have narrowly avoided being hit by a car turning right on red multiple times. One time I had a car graze my back tire which was really scary but fortunately I ended up okay.
right away
Maybe it was autocowreckt but the phrase is “right of way”.
You’re correct. I wrote that at around 4 am and I had a variety of other errors as well on my first draft, that one happened to slip through.
Not nearly as bad as left on green BUT yielding to oncoming traffic.
Honestly right on red is so stupid.
Everything you wrote after this sentence told me that people are stupid, not necessarily the right itself. It makes a lot of sense, I’d like to have it in the EU.
You are correct in my opinion. I don’t like how many people assume it’s a green arrow or that you must go if able, but I wouldn’t give it up.
To offer a counter argument. Right on red the concept isn’t stupid, its stupid to just sit there when there’s not a car in sight.
The drivers, shitty driver tests and 0 enforcement is all dumb.
It’s supposed to be treated like a stop sign, you stop, look, and go when safe. Not roll through at max speed. People also don’t seem to know that a red arrow equals a no-turn on red sign.
I’ve been seeing electronic no-turn on red signs that can turn on/off with the light cycle. So if the opposite lane has the left green, the sign tells you not to turn on red. One would hope they’re integrated into the cross walks too, (not that everyone uses those either).
I think the us has the worse road tests, mine was just some suburbs with 0 merges, no highways, a couple stops signs and maybe a light. Pretty much anyone driving for a day could have passed that thing, and that’s how we end up with the bullshit like “the fast cruise lane (pass lane)” “right roll on red” “the merger has right away” “merge on highway 20miles(32kmh) slower than traffic” “blinker optional” “blinker on only when half way through turn or merge” “break before blinker” “wave of death on two lane roads” the list could go on and on…
I know I’m being pedantic but I just thought it’s interesting that you said “there’s not a car in sight” when I thought the primary concern was drivers not paying attention to pedestrians crossing the street.
However, why is it more stupid to sit there when there’s not a car on sight only when turning right but not when going straight or turning left? There’s an argument for larger roads with many lanes, sure, but isn’t it the same when it’s only 1-2 lane roads?
You are correct, I should have said “Not a car, pedestrian or other obstacle in sight”.
The problem is absolutely people not paying attention when turning; they’ll fixate on the traffic coming from the left, and the moment there’s a tiny opening they’ll floor it and ram into stopped traffic or pedestrians on the right.
I would say its equally stupid to sit there with no car in sight. I guess this most often happens at night when little traffic. There are some light that seems to have a 60sec cycle and it sucks idling there for no reason. Roundabouts help, and over the last 10? years they’ve been appearing more.
Telling people to use their judgment to decide if they can just go regardless of red is a bad idea. People barley handle the right-on-red as it is.
I’m so confused here.
The right lanes are the slow lanes - we overtake/pass on the left, and you are advised to stay out of the left lane unless you are passing. This makes sense because you need to slow down to exit the freeway, or in case of emergency, you are closer to the side of the road to be able to do so.
How else are you supposed to deal with 4-way stops? In my state it’s first arrival goes first, however if two cars arrive at the same time the car on the right proceeds first. It’s not that complicated, and I’m not sure what’s wrong with it?
And I’m not at all sure what you’re referring to regarding coming from the right? Coming from the right in relation to where?
How else are you supposed to deal with 4-way stops? In my state it’s first arrival goes first, however if two cars arrive at the same time the car on the right proceeds first.
By always respecting the second rule. There are no 4-way stops here. If an intersection does not have signs the vehicle on the right always has priority. No exceptions.
It’s not that complicated, and I’m not sure what’s wrong with it
The problem is that people have different views on who came first but there are no different views on where right is. If there are any disputes there can be no arguments on who came 20 milliseconds earlier, instead you can just look at who had the right of way.
Uh, we do have a rule about right goes first…
In a four-way stop, if you arrive at the same time then the one on the right goes first and if you’re across from each other then the one going straight gets the right of way and the one turning goes after otherwise it doesn’t matter if both are going straight.
Otherwise, if you have two people arrive at a four-way stop and one is clearly there before the other then the winner gets the right of way to keep flow of traffic going rather than waiting for the other to stop and go just because they were on the right side.
We don’t have a ton of roundabouts/traffic circles here but it works the same as it would in Europe.
Doesn’t matter who got there first, person from the right gets right of way even if he came later. You approach the intersection with caution and make sure you can stop to yield should anyone come from the right.
In the US I believed it’s legal to pass people from the right if they are driving to your left. That’s illegal here, you can only pass from the left.
It’s also illegal to hog a lane, you must always use the right most lane when it’s free, unless you’re passing.
it’s also illegal to hog a lane
Yeah, that’s a HUGE problem here.
Grinding all traffic in all directions over multiple lanes to a stop when a school bus stops
This varies by state, but I think I most of them are setup so that you don’t have to stop if the road is divided, or if there are more than 4 lanes (so 2 lanes for each direction, plus a turn lane in the middle, you don’t have to stop). As always, check your local laws, and when in doubt, signal and stop.
Edit: to clarify, the oncoming lanes don’t stop, the lane behind and adjacent to the bus still have to stop.
“check your local laws”
Lol sorry what? It’s even worse than I thought 😂
There are 50 states in the USA. They generally have the same rules of the road but you are being an idiot if you think that all states have the same laws. Does any other coalition in the world work like that?
You should see us a roundabout! 😉
Overtaking/passing on the right
Generally illegal, some people do it still.
4 way stops and whoever comes first can go
We get circles in high population areas, but not enough, I agree
No strict right of way when coming from the right
This is actually in our traffic laws, just most are dumb enough not to be able to figure it out :)
Right on red
Varies per state. (which is also stupid) It’s like the circles, it’s a density_safety/cost thing. If you don’t have pedestrians, treating a turn with traffic as a stop sign can keep intersection costs down.
I’d also tac on abysmal public transportation, poorly maintained rail lines and horrible airport candor.
What does “strict right of way when coming from the right” mean? If it’s up for debate there’s usually either stops or yields, or road size rules (double yellow takes priority over local small roads)
-
As an American, I’m gonna barge in with my loud opinion, 'cuz that’s what we do. Here’s something which people living elsewhere might not know that Americans aren’t ready to hear:
Automobiles are luxury toys and fashion accessories, and we shouldn’t base our entire lives on them. No, the car industry didn’t make our economy strong; it took off after we already had a lot of extra wealth to burn after becoming a world economic powerhouse. We can’t afford to keep wasting all that wealth on them as the world starts to burn, and half of our citizens sink into poverty.
Seinfeld isn’t funny.
That American exceptionalism is only describing the fact that America continues to have slaves when almost every other nation has banned it completely.
That Europeans have running water
This definitely won’t be a pile of horseshit from people never been there, believe everything they see on TV, and operate completely on stereotypes from various sources, sprinkled with the dumbest takes you ever heard, and a bunch of blaming capitalism like it’s the only nation that employs it.
Does “a foreign language” count?
Gun control works.
And OK maybe it doesn’t solve the problem 100%, but it solves it 99%, and that’s a lot of schoolkids that aren’t dead any more. Look at any first world country for working examples; I’m in the UK, and yes we still have some gun violence, but it’s a whole load less than it would have otherwise been.
And it’s incredibly short sighted to reject any solution that doesn’t solve a problem 100%. Partial solutions are good.
