Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Do Americans think the rest of the world is a shit hole?

Do Americans think the rest of the world is a shit hole?
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2016, 05:49 PM
 
Honest question. I think it was kind of touched in the Bernie thread, but after Marco’s comments at the debate Saturday night, its come up again for me. Specifically this line:
He wants America to become more like the rest of the world. We don't want to be like the rest of the world, we want to be the United States of America.
What is wrong with the rest of the world? Are there not things that the world does better? Are there not things we could learn from others?


Also, the second part brings up another question, but let me get a different quote that better frames it:
If we stay on the road we are on now; if we stay on the road Barack Obama has put us on…The American dream will be lost. We will still be a rich and powerful country, but we will not be special anymore.”
This is a bizarre statement. We’ll be successful, but we won’t be ‘special’. But the question is, what is that special it that he’s referring to?
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2016, 06:02 PM
 
I think parts of the world are shit holes (generally, the port cities I spent time in), and to be fair, they were self-described shit holes. I also think that there is a large portion of the US that qualifies. Where there is humanity, there are shit holes.

As a general rule, even as a conservative, I want no part of the "special" that the vast majority of the Republican candidates are selling this time around.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2016, 06:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mike Wuerthele View Post
I think parts of the world are shit holes (generally, the port cities I spent time in), and to be fair, they were self-described shit holes. I also think that there is a large portion of the US that qualifies. Where there is humanity, there are shit holes.
Perhaps my title was too provocative. I hadn't considered our own internal shittiness. But to rephrase the title: Do Americans think the rest of the world is inferior? Not taken as a whole, but every part. Because thats the message I take away from statements such as Rubio's.
( Last edited by The Final Dakar; Feb 8, 2016 at 07:02 PM. )
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2016, 06:46 PM
 
I suspect there is a certain percentage of the US population who are the "MURICA F YEAH" sort, and I think that the general "USA IS THE SHIT, AND EVERYPLACE ELSE IS TERRIBLE" attitude appeals to that crowd to get them hooting and hollering.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2016, 09:48 PM
 
I like Europe, but there's a reason we have Google, Apple, Microsoft, Hollywood, the military-industrial complex, Coke, Pepsi, and cold beer.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2016, 10:12 PM
 
I don't know where this thing about cold beer comes from. I've never had a warm beer in any pub in the UK. Or Europe for that matter. Hell even Botswana had cold beer in the middle of the Okavango.
Plus it doesn't really matter how cold American beer is since its like making love in a canoe....
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2016, 10:23 PM
 
I've been to some parts of the world that would qualify as "shit holes," mostly because of the combination of abject poverty and an economic system that ensures there's no way for the poor to do any better. THAT I do NOT want for America. I also don't like the idea of paying freakishly high taxes that don't necessarily better my community. That part of "the rest of the world" I can do without.

But we're seeing some cracks in the "rest of the world is lovely" veneer, too. As many European countries transition from relatively homogenous populations to more diverse populations (ethnicity and language being the biggest diversity markers), we're seeing European problems that seem quite familiar; xenophobia and anti-immigration fervor, "I don't want my taxes going to support those slackers," and so on.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2016, 10:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I don't know where this thing about cold beer comes from. I've never had a warm beer in any pub in the UK. Or Europe for that matter. Hell even Botswana had cold beer in the middle of the Okavango.
Plus it doesn't really matter how cold American beer is since its like making love in a canoe....
The gag is pretty dated.

Assuming there's truth to it, I always figured it had its roots in cultural inertia from drinking warm beer in the centuries before refrigeration existed.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2016, 02:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I've been to some parts of the world that would qualify as "shit holes," mostly because of the combination of abject poverty and an economic system that ensures there's no way for the poor to do any better.
The US does not lead the world in Social Mobility. It could learn something from

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
THAT I do NOT want for America. I also don't like the idea of paying freakishly high taxes that don't necessarily better my community.
How about free healthcare at the point of delivery, that on balance is of higher quality and lower cost per patient. University education either free or profoundly subsidised. Subsidised and useful national rail networks. Yes the taxes are higher, but to claim there is no community benefit is just wrong.

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
But we're seeing some cracks in the "rest of the world is lovely" veneer, too. As many European countries transition from relatively homogenous populations to more diverse populations (ethnicity and language being the biggest diversity markers), we're seeing European problems that seem quite familiar; xenophobia and anti-immigration fervor, "I don't want my taxes going to support those slackers," and so on.
100% correct.
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2016, 02:56 AM
 
More and more places around the world are becoming dangerous and contentious as they see changes in two areas:
1) industrialization
2) diversity

Populations that were once more rural, conforming, and homogenous may have had a lower quality of comfort and sophistication than the U.S. but they were relatively more peaceful for both residents and visitors. As they become more globalized cultures they are experiencing very large growing pains that pull at their national identities.
The social programs most of Europe had made peace with were tolerable only because they benefited their own people. As they stretch that umbrella out to foreigners that safety net becomes less palatable to fund especially when those outsiders seem to reject their hosts cultural norms. I would bet anything that Europe will be rolling back those programs as time goes on. And for populations in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia that are becoming more mobile and drawn to cities you're seeing that increased proximity results in more civil rights abuses and clashes of historical caste and ethnic differences.

All of that makes those places way shittier than they were before.

----------------

I can think of no other culture in the world that has a greater ingrained sense of individualism than the United States. It is something that permeates its people in a myriad of different ways. Its at the core of what we perceive as the "American Dream" and is even responsible for our love of cars and guns. In what Obama sees as effort to make America more fair he is inadvertently diminishing that spirit of individualism by asking the collective to bare the burden of the disenfranchised. Which again is difficult for people to be on board with in a multicultural society.

And yes there are places where the standard baseline for it people is better than the U.S. But those are only that way because they are smaller populations that are more racially uniform and come at the cost of less opportunity for upward mobility.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2016, 03:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The gag is pretty dated.

Assuming there's truth to it, I always figured it had its roots in cultural inertia from drinking warm beer in the centuries before refrigeration existed.
Serving temperature depends on the style of beer. In the UK, cask ales are (ideally) served at temperatures between 11-13°C (~52-55°F). This is because you get more aroma and flavour than you would at the colder temperatures at which they serve keg beers (i.e.lagers).

It's not warm, but it's not ice cold either. As the US craft beer scene has taken off, I would imagine it's only a matter of time until it starts to recognise all beer shouldn't be ice cold- there is a place for variety.

That being said, there is likely some truth to your comment on refrigeration, but considering refrigeration didn't become common until the 1920's, beer was consumed in the US for at least two centuries without it as well.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2016, 03:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
I can think of no other culture in the world that has a greater ingrained sense of individualism than the United States.
America does seem to have a different outlook on life. One area where it stands out UK vs. US is in our response to adversity. The english stereotype is the 'stiff upper lip' is absolutely true. Accept it and go about your business. In the US the first response is to try and do something about it. It's subtle and there are of course shades of grey, but it's very noticeable.

There are, of course, downsides to a culture that demands action on every problem.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2016, 04:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Serving temperature depends on the style of beer. In the UK, cask ales are (ideally) served at temperatures between 11-13°C (~52-55°F). This is because you get more aroma and flavour than you would at the colder temperatures at which they serve keg beers (i.e.lagers).

It's not warm, but it's not ice cold either. As the US craft beer scene has taken off, I would imagine it's only a matter of time until it starts to recognise all beer shouldn't be ice cold- there is a place for variety.

That being said, there is likely some truth to your comment on refrigeration, but considering refrigeration didn't become common until the 1920's, beer was consumed in the US for at least two centuries without it as well.
Which, as Europeans are quick to remind us, don't mean shit compared to their well worn cultures.

We also were big into the ice.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2016, 07:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
America does seem to have a different outlook on life. One area where it stands out UK vs. US is in our response to adversity. The english stereotype is the 'stiff upper lip' is absolutely true. Accept it and go about your business. In the US the first response is to try and do something about it. It's subtle and there are of course shades of grey, but it's very noticeable.

There are, of course, downsides to a culture that demands action on every problem.
You want to see a country that acts when you try to change something they don't like, look to France. Unless its an invasion in which case they give up pretty quick. But if you piss them off any other way they they happily bring the whole continent to a standstill or start rioting.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2016, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
The US does not lead the world in Social Mobility. It could learn something from

How about free healthcare at the point of delivery, that on balance is of higher quality and lower cost per patient. University education either free or profoundly subsidised. Subsidised and useful national rail networks. Yes the taxes are higher, but to claim there is no community benefit is just wrong.

100% correct.
I think that, given the other issues and "benefits" some countries have that go along with free healthcare, it's location-dependent. Denmark seems to "get it" with where taxes go, while other Northern European countries miss big things like "housing equity." Move out of Northern Europe, and the model breaks down pretty quickly. I fully agree that healthcare is a BIG issue (I work in healthcare, and funding limits much of what I can do for my patients), but "free" healthcare in some places (think Canada) is also "managed" healthcare - including sometimes lengthy waiting lists for stuff that should be provided based on acuity, like some cardiac procedures... You can't simply say "everywhere else has 'free' healthcare and it's awesome" because the actual personal costs are often pretty high.

What I would LOVE to see is "PREVENTATIVE CARE" everywhere, including getting young people to visit a doc every now and then. I treat way too many people who were so caught up in living their lives their own way that they have wound up with a ton of ugly and chronic issues that are now costing them limbs and cognition, and costing their families lost income and expensive home modifications... </rant>

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2016, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
And yes there are places where the standard baseline for it people is better than the U.S. But those are only that way because they are smaller populations that are more racially uniform and come at the cost of less opportunity for upward mobility.
Excellent post. One question on the last sentence - I'm under the impression that the rising wealth disparity in the US is actually hampering upward mobility. Do you think that's the case?
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2016, 06:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I fully agree that healthcare is a BIG issue (I work in healthcare, and funding limits much of what I can do for my patients), but "free" healthcare in some places (think Canada) is also "managed" healthcare - including sometimes lengthy waiting lists for stuff that should be provided based on acuity, like some cardiac procedures...
Admittedly, I am going to counter this (at least partially) with anecdotal evidence, which we all know is sketchy at best.

My shoulder hurt. A good bit, but not debilitating. I went to my GP, and he recommended I see a shoulder specialist- he knew a guy. I got an appointment about six weeks later. He diagnosed the issue and got me sorted.

Had I still been in the USA, and I had roughly the same level of coverage I had when I left, I bet I would have been seen within a few days. I endured over a month of annoying pain because of the NHS, and it was annoying, but not the end of the world.

This summer, my wife discovered a lump in her breast. The next day she went to the GP, who sent her directly to the hospital for a scan. Within a week she was in surgery, followed by chemo, radiation, and now hormone therapy. Every interaction she had was was caring and efficient.

The total bill for both our treatments was 0.00. Including daily transport for five days for radiotherapy.

Yes, for non-urgent issues, we wait longer. Yes, sometimes non-urgent issues are really undiagnosed urgent issues that should have been handled quicker, but this kind of screw-up happens in the USA as well. The propaganda of the US Healthcare industry about socialised medicine is largely misinformation- outrageous profits are a pretty big incentive to massage the truth.

The reality is that healthcare in the US is rationed and managed just as much as it is in Europe, it just those doing the rationing and managing are for profit insurance providers as opposed to a non-for-profit national health service.

Are there massive problems with the NHS in the UK? Absolutely. But the rest of the developed world still spends substantially less per patient that the US without sacrificing outcomes. I am not aware of any healthcare metric in which the US is leading, except for dollars spent and perhaps early cancer diagnosis- the true value of which is somewhat disputed.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2016, 07:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post

I can think of no other culture in the world that has a greater ingrained sense of individualism than the United States. It is something that permeates its people in a myriad of different ways. Its at the core of what we perceive as the "American Dream" and is even responsible for our love of cars and guns. In what Obama sees as effort to make America more fair he is inadvertently diminishing that spirit of individualism by asking the collective to bare the burden of the disenfranchised. Which again is difficult for people to be on board with in a multicultural society.
Theres a fine line between individualism and 'selfish assholeism'. Its evident in the pathological hatred of socialism, welfare, government and taxes, the continued prevalence of racism and the denial in the face of an advanced education system of evolution, climate change and other science that might prove inconvenient that seems to afflict somewhere in the region of half the population. (Not the diverse half either as a rule.)

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
And yes there are places where the standard baseline for it people is better than the U.S. But those are only that way because they are smaller populations that are more racially uniform and come at the cost of less opportunity for upward mobility.

Surely if your baseline is richer than there is less opportunity for upward mobility by definition?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2016, 05:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Admittedly, I am going to counter this (at least partially) with anecdotal evidence, which we all know is sketchy at best.<snip>
Sadly, level of coverage not withstanding, here in the States it really depends on a) the GP FIRST and then b) the insurer. My son has a plan he got through the "Exchange" that is affordable and provides decent coverage, but the best part of his coverage is that his GP really doesn't go in for the "we'll see what is covered" stuff. If he needs something, she writes the script and he gets it.

Once, the insurer questioned her on what she prescribed for him, and she provided the clinical justification the same day - it was covered. My son got a letter from the insurer that something "might not be covered" and the doc explained it to him (herself, not some office person).

My coverage is through the DoD Health System, and my GP has even more leeway, though some resources do take some scheduling time. Both of the kinds of things you discussed would be handled about as quickly and (with my current coverage) without out of pocket costs. However, by law, when I reach Medicare age, my DoD coverage supposedly becomes a "secondary" insurance and Medicare rules come into play. That's an issue, but for me, not a big one.

The other side of that is the kinds of things my coworkers tell me about. I work in healthcare, so my coworkers are hardly "uneducated consumers," but I hear all sorts of bad things about primary care docs who are just plain bad at everything. If I can, by two symptoms, diagnose appendicitis, how hard should it be for a physician to at least rule that out? It shouldn't be hard at all, but...

So Paco, while I'm sure the cost and convenience you have experienced is due in a big part to the system where you are, I would not trust that ALL GPs in that system are as good as yours, and that's the thing: the "gatekeeper" for health care is also the arbiter of whether or not the patient gets high quality care or no care at all. Coverage is actually secondary in this; total and free coverage doesn't help if the doctor doesn't take action. After that, it's only a matter of access to resources, which is also somewhat dependent on the primary care doctor and how hard he/she pushes.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2016, 05:59 PM
 
I don't disagree with you, but I'm not sure I understand how it is relevant to my post. I was responding to your assertion that in countries with socialised medicine, patients do not receive the same quality of care they do in the US because it is managed- and you highlighted waiting times for treatment.

I responded that healthcare is managed in the USA as well- a point you bolstered by your story of your son's prescription being questioned. I acknowledged there were longer waiting times for non-urgent ailments, but, in my experience, urgent medical issues are acted on immediately.

Yes there are good GPs and bad GPs. This is true regardless of the system. I guess one difference is that if my NHS GP sucks, I can go to another one without having to worry if he or she is covered by my insurer.

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Sadly, level of coverage not withstanding, here in the States it really depends on a) the GP FIRST and then b) the insurer. My son has a plan he got through the "Exchange" that is affordable and provides decent coverage, but the best part of his coverage is that his GP really doesn't go in for the "we'll see what is covered" stuff. If he needs something, she writes the script and he gets it.

Once, the insurer questioned her on what she prescribed for him, and she provided the clinical justification the same day - it was covered. My son got a letter from the insurer that something "might not be covered" and the doc explained it to him (herself, not some office person).

My coverage is through the DoD Health System, and my GP has even more leeway, though some resources do take some scheduling time. Both of the kinds of things you discussed would be handled about as quickly and (with my current coverage) without out of pocket costs. However, by law, when I reach Medicare age, my DoD coverage supposedly becomes a "secondary" insurance and Medicare rules come into play. That's an issue, but for me, not a big one.

The other side of that is the kinds of things my coworkers tell me about. I work in healthcare, so my coworkers are hardly "uneducated consumers," but I hear all sorts of bad things about primary care docs who are just plain bad at everything. If I can, by two symptoms, diagnose appendicitis, how hard should it be for a physician to at least rule that out? It shouldn't be hard at all, but...

So Paco, while I'm sure the cost and convenience you have experienced is due in a big part to the system where you are, I would not trust that ALL GPs in that system are as good as yours, and that's the thing: the "gatekeeper" for health care is also the arbiter of whether or not the patient gets high quality care or no care at all. Coverage is actually secondary in this; total and free coverage doesn't help if the doctor doesn't take action. After that, it's only a matter of access to resources, which is also somewhat dependent on the primary care doctor and how hard he/she pushes.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2016, 10:57 PM
 
It's relevant because, no matter how the system is built, no health care system can ensure that primary care docs are worth their salt, so the system itself can't guarantee every individual will get equally high value, despite every individual being taxed as if that were true. And not everyone will have the insight to say "this doc sucks, I'll find another one," which adds to the inequity.

I suppose that there should be some sort of oversight mechanism to help the system find and correct sucky GPs, which would help maintain equality of care, but that's not guaranteed everywhere. Some national health services probably don't have the resources, and others probably don't have the awareness that all doctors are not equally skilled.

And I'm NOT knocking a well-built, properly funded national health service. I am instead simply trying to pint out that having such a system isn't always going to ensure that the system works properly.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2016, 03:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I've been to some parts of the world that would qualify as "shit holes," mostly because of the combination of abject poverty and an economic system that ensures there's no way for the poor to do any better. THAT I do NOT want for America.
Do you believe this is what liberals are trying to achieve here?

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I also don't like the idea of paying freakishly high taxes that don't necessarily better my community. That part of "the rest of the world" I can do without.
Is there an example of this that's being done here?

Because otherwise, it just comes off as a political boogeyman. "Democrats want to turn us into all those countries that suck!" ignoring that there are countries that don't suck.


Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
I can think of no other culture in the world that has a greater ingrained sense of individualism than the United States. It is something that permeates its people in a myriad of different ways. Its at the core of what we perceive as the "American Dream" and is even responsible for our love of cars and guns. In what Obama sees as effort to make America more fair he is inadvertently diminishing that spirit of individualism by asking the collective to bare the burden of the disenfranchised. Which again is difficult for people to be on board with in a multicultural society.
How do you define 'individualism'? Because in the bolded above it seems like a fancy way of saying less taxes. Does obamacare infringe on 'individualism'?


Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
And yes there are places where the standard baseline for it people is better than the U.S. But those are only that way because they are smaller populations that are more racially uniform and come at the cost of less opportunity for upward mobility.
Here's the thing: It's fair to point out homogeneity and size, but correlation doesn't equal causation. But has anyone actually proven it?

Nothing gets conservatives to abandon their bootstraps for a defeatist attitude faster than the homogeneity observation. If you truly thin we're the greatest nation on earth, shouldn't we be able to achieve things in the face of factors other countries can't?
( Last edited by The Final Dakar; Feb 15, 2016 at 03:41 PM. )
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2016, 03:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
You can't simply say "everywhere else has 'free' healthcare and it's awesome" because the actual personal costs are often pretty high.
That's the paradox, though. We spend more than any other country on health care per person, but our results aren't the best overall.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2016, 03:35 PM
 
I think you can pin the vast majority of our problems compared to other first world societies directly on drugs being illegal.

It's going to take us a century to recover from it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2016, 03:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think you can pin the vast majority of our problems compared to other first world societies directly on drugs being illegal.
But aren't they illegal is most of Europe as well?

My naive assumption is the difference is its easier to get them into the US.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2016, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
But aren't they illegal is most of Europe as well?

My naive assumption is the difference is its easier to get them into the US.
It's taken a situation we could probably deal with (lack of homogeneity) and driven a massive wedge into it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2016, 04:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It's taken a situation we could probably deal with (lack of homogeneity) and driven a massive wedge into it.
Spell it out for me, please.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2016, 04:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Spell it out for me, please.
I-T-S T-A-K-E-N

The original proposal was our American exceptionalism should be able to overcome the adversity engendered by our particular brand of multi-racial society.

If we didn't have drug prohibition making the adversity an order of magnitude worse, our American exceptionalism would have been able to overcome it.

Drug prohibition in European countries isn't going to drive a wedge into race relations because there are no race relations.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2016, 04:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I-T-S T-A-K-E-N

The original proposal was our American exceptionalism should be able to overcome the adversity engendered by our particular brand of multi-racial society.

If we didn't have drug prohibition making the adversity an order of magnitude worse, our American exceptionalism would have been able to overcome it.

Drug prohibition in European countries isn't going to drive a wedge into race relations because there are no race relations.
I'm probably still misreading but here goes: Isn't the impact of drug laws a symptom of the real problem and not the cause? i.e., blaming drug laws for our racial adversity gives short shrift to the massive underlying problem – income inequality between the races.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2016, 04:58 PM
 
The prohibition is a huge contributor to the income inequality.

The most overt example is earning potential being permanently damaged for drug felons.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2016, 05:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think you can pin the vast majority of our problems compared to other first world societies directly on drugs being illegal.

It's going to take us a century to recover from it.
When you have a penal system where half the inmates are there due to buying and/or selling illegal, mind-altering substances, it's time to reevaluate their legality. Legalize and educate and you'd cut the prison population in half... Of course, that won't happen soon due to corrupt politicians being bought out by corrections contractors like the CCA.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2016, 05:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
But aren't they illegal is most of Europe as well?

My naive assumption is the difference is its easier to get them into the US.
Its not hard to get drugs into Europe due to the proximity of Africa and Afghanistan. We get lots of weed and some heroin but perhaps not so much coke and meth is pretty rare, especially in the UK, though some nasty variants are becoming a problem in eastern Europe. I think its your proximity to supplies from Mexico and South America.

Actually there is no shortage of coke but I think its heavily cut and its very expensive.
I'm not really sure where it comes in from. Pills based on MDMA and Ketamine are probably second favourite after weed. I guess much of that is made in Europe and just trucked around.

All this stuff is illegal everywhere except weed in the Netherlands and one or two parts of Germany I think, and Portugal has decriminalised pretty much everything and invested heavily in rehab and support systems. Its worked wonders by all accounts.

The main difference though I suspect is the severity of the sentences handed out in the US. You hear of zero tolerance, 20 year sentences for possession of weed in states like Nevada. Over here you have to be carrying a fair bit to be worth the paperwork. And life sentences just for trafficking let alone dealing are rare, no matter how big the scale of your operation. Even possession of small amounts of class A drugs won't land you jail the first few times unless you have it bagged up or get caught selling it.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2016, 06:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The prohibition is a huge contributor to the income inequality.
I'll give you its the most concrete example and the easiest short term fix, but it can only do so much. Income inequality contributes to educational inequality through school funding.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
The most overt example is earning potential being permanently damaged for drug felons.
Being named Malik instead of Mark is enough to hurt your earnings potential.

But to return to the point of the thread, the reason we can't have nice things is apparently because we're racists. That's a pretty ****ing sad excuse.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2016, 06:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Its not hard to get drugs into Europe due to the proximity of Africa and Afghanistan. We get lots of weed and some heroin but perhaps not so much coke and meth is pretty rare, especially in the UK, though some nasty variants are becoming a problem in eastern Europe. I think its your proximity to supplies from Mexico and South America.

Actually there is no shortage of coke but I think its heavily cut and its very expensive.
I'm not really sure where it comes in from. Pills based on MDMA and Ketamine are probably second favourite after weed. I guess much of that is made in Europe and just trucked around.

All this stuff is illegal everywhere except weed in the Netherlands and one or two parts of Germany I think, and Portugal has decriminalised pretty much everything and invested heavily in rehab and support systems. Its worked wonders by all accounts.

The main difference though I suspect is the severity of the sentences handed out in the US. You hear of zero tolerance, 20 year sentences for possession of weed in states like Nevada. Over here you have to be carrying a fair bit to be worth the paperwork. And life sentences just for trafficking let alone dealing are rare, no matter how big the scale of your operation. Even possession of small amounts of class A drugs won't land you jail the first few times unless you have it bagged up or get caught selling it.
Thanks, Africa completely slipped my mind. No harder to get to Europe than SA drugs to the US, I imagine.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2016, 10:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
But to return to the point of the thread, the reason we can't have nice things is apparently because we're racists. That's a pretty ****ing sad excuse.
Now it's my turn. Spell this out for me.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2016, 11:27 PM
 
Do Americans think the rest of the world is a shit hole?
Yes most of them do. Now consider Marco's comments, as well as the general topic within each post of this thread, and the political rhetoric of this nation in general, it kind of demonstrates the point. For example, Marco wasn't actually talking about "rest of the world" as in the majority, because thats not what the democrats were really talking about either... He was talking about Europe and a handful of other countries most likely. These debates circle around how the "rest of the world" does things when debating free services Americans think should be directed their way... The kinds of services not offered in most the world, but offered only in a few countries, such as in Europe, Canada, or Japan for example. To use the wording "rest of the world" when only referring to a few 1st world outsourced-slave-dependent nations in every single argument... It's as if the rest of the world doesn't exist. What says the "rest of the world" doesn't matter more than that? (Even the word "America" in reference to the USA is considered narcissistically odd to many South/Central Americans)

If that isn't convincing; can you picture the average 25-40 year old American suburbanite, or yuppie/ hipster/ inner city whatever you wanna call it - being happy in South America where they're likely to have extremely limited access to internet, smart-phone, gps, new cars, flushable toilet, or any other form of technology outside the big cities? People think healthcare here is bad, it's way worse in almost all other countries. But we dont talk about those countries.

What is wrong with the rest of the world? Are there not things that the world does better? Are there not things we could learn from others?
Personally I think we should learn from poor countries (ie Cuba) how to stretch our resources further. Or strive for the tighter sense of community most poor nations have. We could learn how we dont need to be constantly be in a state of developing or buying stuff in our consumerist culture to be happy.
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2016, 12:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
How do you define 'individualism'? Because in the bolded above it seems like a fancy way of saying less taxes. Does obamacare infringe on 'individualism'?
My comment was quite concise and self defining. The more a policy erodes our ability to practice self-determination the harder it is for Americans to embrace it.

Here's the thing: It's fair to point out homogeneity and size, but correlation doesn't equal causation. But has anyone actually proven it?

Nothing gets conservatives to abandon their bootstraps for a defeatist attitude faster than the homogeneity observation. If you truly thin we're the greatest nation on earth, shouldn't we be able to achieve things in the face of factors other countries can't?
Yes, to the first. No, to the second because it related to evolutionary biology not what goals our nation sets.
Its a long and complicated concept that I don't care to waste my time explaining in detail but I'll give you the three main bullet points.

1) As a species we associate into social groups that resemble ourselves in ideals, appearance, and status. We can't help it and as a general rule do not deviate from that practice very often. Its called the similarity-attraction theory.

2) We also are not generally capable of caring about more than a small number of people. And even within that circle our empathy and sense of relation to those within is subdivided into lessening degrees.
Here's an over simplified explanation of the concept of Dunbar's Number:
What is the Monkeysphere
Discrete hierarchical organization of social group sizes

3) As a community/nation/group/whatever grows larger and more diverse the more stark and divisive those differences become because self interest and preservation of you and yours is one of the most fundamental human instincts and we live in a world of limited resources. The more dissimilarity you have among a populace the more tribalism will increase because our instinct is to provide for our circle first.

Your questions aren't really as poignant or high minded as you like to think they are. Like the thread on capitalism you're taking unrealistic idealism that you've conjured up in a bubble and are asking why the real world and human nature can't conform to it. You may as well be asking why we can't give every child their own unicorn.

edit: my mistake. You and besson3c are basically the same person. So it still applies.
( Last edited by Captain Obvious; Feb 16, 2016 at 12:33 AM. )

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2016, 12:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Theres a fine line between individualism and 'selfish assholeism'. Its evident in the pathological hatred of socialism, welfare, government and taxes, the continued prevalence of racism and the denial in the face of an advanced education system of evolution, climate change and other science that might prove inconvenient that seems to afflict somewhere in the region of half the population. (Not the diverse half either as a rule.)
As opposed to where? The panacea that is the United Kingdom? You have a population that is almost 90% caucasian and 1/5th the size of the U.S. and still with such fewer variables to deal with you've had riots, protests, immigration opposition, and serious class warfare problems in the last 5 years. Not to mention the problems you've had retaining support in Ireland and Scotland... which almost seceded.
There's no shortage of fractures in every nation and as I said above it matters how big and how different its population is.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2016, 04:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
As opposed to where? The panacea that is the United Kingdom? You have a population that is almost 90% caucasian and 1/5th the size of the U.S. and still with such fewer variables to deal with you've had riots, protests, immigration opposition, and serious class warfare problems in the last 5 years. Not to mention the problems you've had retaining support in Ireland and Scotland... which almost seceded.
There's no shortage of fractures in every nation and as I said above it matters how big and how different its population is.
You misunderstand me. I'm not claiming that the US is the only place with problems, of course it isn't. It is however in a very exclusive minority in that many of the problems you have, you consider virtues and are proud of them. Perhaps not universally, but on a significant scale.

Xenophobia is definitely a big problem in the UK, always has been. I personally believe this won't always be the case, and tremendous progress has been made. Its at a potentially precarious point where economic pressures threaten to send us back the other way a bit and political correctness can go too far as we are seeing with all this safe space nonsense at Universities (Surprisingly I agree with you on this issue, to a point) but our racists seem to understand that they are wrong to be racists. Once you get to that stage, I'd like to think the battle is heading for an inevitable conclusion.

As for class war, its essentially the basis of our political divide.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2016, 10:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Do you believe this is what liberals are trying to achieve here?
Not at all. I honestly believe that many politicians think they're doing what is best for the people. The problem is that when you "take care" of people for too long, they depend on that sort of thing. I would prefer less "what is best for me" and more "what supports more Americans cooperating to make the country better."

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Is there an example of this that's being done here?
Not yet, at least not on a national level. California seems to be willing, as a group, to put up with higher taxes to support voter-initiated "bread and circuses" sorts of things. With Initiative, Californians can make law, even if that law is too stupid for Sacramento to even consider.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Because otherwise, it just comes off as a political boogeyman. "Democrats want to turn us into all those countries that suck!" ignoring that there are countries that don't suck.
I am an independent voter. I am willing to vote against either major party's candidate, regardless of which color/animal they're tagged with. I think SOME Democrats have an inflated idea of what Americans would go for, mostly because they don't understand how very different most other countries are from the US. But I also think a lot of Republicans have the idea that any rules at all stifle business, and after all, what's an economy without business?

The worst part is that it's no longer about political philosophies, but rather about which party is in charge. I don't CARE which label is used, I want my elected representatives to represent ME, my needs and preferences at least as much as they represent YOU and your needs and preferences. We don't really have that now. It's just about getting one or another party in charge, and without any real sense that maybe they should all work together for everyone that doesn't get paid for an extra house and an office staff inside the beltway.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2016, 08:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Now it's my turn. Spell this out for me.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The original proposal was our American exceptionalism should be able to overcome the adversity engendered by our particular brand of multi-racial society.

If we didn't have drug prohibition making the adversity an order of magnitude worse, our American exceptionalism would have been able to overcome it.
Our drug prohibition has roots in racism, and if you don't buy that, our enforcement of such laws is inherently racist.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2016, 08:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
For example, Marco wasn't actually talking about "rest of the world" as in the majority, because thats not what the democrats were really talking about either... He was talking about Europe and a handful of other countries most likely. These debates circle around how the "rest of the world" does things when debating free services Americans think should be directed their way... The kinds of services not offered in most the world, but offered only in a few countries, such as in Europe, Canada, or Japan for example.
Agreed, and that's the same meaning I'm using for this thread.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Yes most of them do.
Okay, but are you referring to Marco's Rest of the World, or the all encompassing one?


Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I am an independent voter. I am willing to vote against either major party's candidate, regardless of which color/animal they're tagged with. I think SOME Democrats have an inflated idea of what Americans would go for, mostly because they don't understand how very different most other countries are from the US.
Right, but that cuts both ways, with concepts such as the silent majority.

---

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
My comment was quite concise and self defining. The more a policy erodes our ability to practice self-determination the harder it is for Americans to embrace it.
Spell it out, please. Because this:
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious
It is something that permeates its people in a myriad of different ways. Its at the core of what we perceive as the "American Dream" and is even responsible for our love of cars and guns.
Is political mumbo-jumbo. "It is something that permeates its people in a myriad of different ways" sounds like dialogue about the Force from Star Wars.



Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
1) As a species we associate into social groups that resemble ourselves in ideals, appearance, and status. We can't help it and as a general rule do not deviate from that practice very often. Its called the similarity-attraction theory.

2) We also are not generally capable of caring about more than a small number of people. And even within that circle our empathy and sense of relation to those within is subdivided into lessening degrees.
Here's an over simplified explanation of the concept of Dunbar's Number:
What is the Monkeysphere
Discrete hierarchical organization of social group sizes

3) As a community/nation/group/whatever grows larger and more diverse the more stark and divisive those differences become because self interest and preservation of you and yours is one of the most fundamental human instincts and we live in a world of limited resources. The more dissimilarity you have among a populace the more tribalism will increase because our instinct is to provide for our circle first.
I can buy all this.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
Your questions aren't really as poignant or high minded as you like to think they are.


Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
edit: my mistake. You and besson3c are basically the same person. So it still applies.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2016, 08:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
But the question is, what is that special it that he’s referring to?
Repeating the question, but with an addendum: Do you believe there is something 'special' about the US? What is it?
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2016, 10:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Our drug prohibition has roots in racism, and if you don't buy that, our enforcement of such laws is inherently racist.
Our drug prohibition has its roots in puritanical prohibitionism, not racism. Until the "crack epidemic", there were few truly racist drug prohibition laws, and most were at the state level. Then came "affordable cocaine," and that changed everything. Affordable meant that the truly ground down people in the least mobile social groups could buy an escape. Equating crack with "a black problem" was much later; Congress passed much stricter laws about crack based on exceptionally faulty research about addiction. Only recently, with voluminous data confirming both that the original research was bogus and that these crack-specific laws targeted blacks and other minorities, has Congress grudgingly changed its tune.

But hey, Congress has never passed laws that were really just window dressing, have they? Oh yeah, they have. A lot. For a very long time. The "National Firearms Act of 1934" was supposed to ban machineguns to keep them out of gangsters' hands. It never worked for its intended purpose. The "Gun Control Act of 1968", written in response to Bobby Kennedy's assassination, was supposed to ban "Saturday Night Special" guns - cheap, small, and typically shoddy. Nope again.

Anti-pot laws were so exceptionally puritanical as to be ludicrous in light of what we know now. Yet pot is still listed as a drug with the same abuse potential (including the same devastating effects) as heroin and straight opium. The puritans of the early 20th Century didn't want anyone smoking marijuana, and the federal laws against it have remained essentially static since then, without any substantial bias against any group. Please tell me you have seen Reefer Madness. Because that film was a straight-faced anti-marijuana propaganda effort.

Now as to how the existing laws are enforced, that's not the fault of the laws. It IS related to the social groups of people who use various illegal drugs. Not a lot of upwardly mobile WASPs are likely to seek out street-cut heroin, though they probably do have a friend or two who can get them a little weed now and then. But when you look at social groups that have other criminal problems, you're likely to find drug use as well. Underprivileged groups with few opportunities to improve their social standing are far more likely to be victimized by criminals, and also far more likely to seek escape through the use of drugs. Funny how it's really not about any ethnic or racial group, but instead about a lack of hope that drives drug use.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2016, 01:46 AM
 
Cotton growers, more than anything else, are the reason pot is illegal. Hemp is a much better, and more renewable, material for making textiles.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2016, 05:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Cotton growers, more than anything else, are the reason pot is illegal. Hemp is a much better, and more renewable, material for making textiles.
I have always believed a version of this- with more of a William Randolph Hearst/wood pulp and paper connection. So I was looking into the cotton connection and found this article.

WARNING! BIASED SOURCE!

Yes this is left-wing Alter.net and it frames drug prohibition laws as having a primarily racial component from the start. It's interesting though, and makes some compelling points. The only articles I could find supporting the 'pot banned because hemp is a wonder crop that would put xyz out of business' were from pro-legalisation sites.

Now I want to find out more about it.
( Last edited by Paco500; Feb 24, 2016 at 01:16 PM. Reason: Typo fixing.)
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2016, 01:13 PM
 
So why is marijuana illegal in the US? Well what did the very first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics .. the predecessor to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) ... have to say about it back in the 1930s?

Originally Posted by Harry Anslinger - Federal Bureau of Narcotics
There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.
Originally Posted by Harry Anslinger - Federal Bureau of Narcotics
Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men.
Marijuana Prohibition Was Racist From The Start. Not Much Has Changed.

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2016, 02:35 PM
 
The irony being had Harry just done some mushrooms, he would have realized we're all the same person and chilled the **** out.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2016, 03:44 PM
 
Meh, they were covering up bribes from the cotton and paper lobbies (which they wouldn't have mentioned, because it would have ended their careers), it's pretty obvious. Otherwise they would have left hemp alone and only went after cannabis, since the two are easily distinguishable from each other.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2016, 09:42 PM
 
Whatever the political machinery behind those laws, they were written as puritanical prohibitions. The spin the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics put on the use of marijuana (or his personal racism), the statutes were written as straight-out bans, not "we're going to throw "Negroe, Hispanics and Filipinos in jail forever, but white musicians can get a slap on the wrist."

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:11 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,