They glorify soldiers way too much and teachers way too little
Between the two there is a big difference:
One is a profession that can be a particularly dangerous way of life. Orders from above put you into place far from support, with limited resources, often in contact with hostiles on a daily basis. You’re often left to fend for yourself with only what you have on you against overwhelming odds. Command structures often pit you against your peers in petty internal politics around rank. The pay isn’t great, and those that stick with it for the long haul to make a lifetime of it often leave scared and mentally injured. It can be a thankless job in putting your life and health on the line to achieve the overall goal.
The other profession usually involves wearing a uniform and enforcing USA’s geopolitical interests in other countries.
U got me in the first half not gonna lie
Your comment made read the other comment.
Worth it.
Ah, the old
RedditLemmy switcharooHold my bulletprove backpack. I am going in.
Hello, future people!
It was good but I saw it coming right away lol.
A family friend of ours just quit his highschool teaching job and is moving his family because he was threatened with a gun in his classroom. The student was expelled, but not arrested and knows where he lives.
I fucking hate it here. Guns need to go.
As an American, it confuses me as well
You poor thing, maybe if your teachers were praised more you’d have been taught better and be less confused.
Feel free to enlighten us, O wise one.
I have no idea, I’m just sympathetic to the plight of confused Americans.
Well you’ve certainly confused this one. Though I suspect you’ve confused some Europeans as well
I was attempting to be humorous; obviously that failed. Surprisingly it doesn’t seem to be apparent to many as to why America glorifies soldiers rather than teachers so I guess I’ll elaborate.
Glorifying soldiers is a nationalistic practice designed to distract from the very real cost of war I.e. the death of young men and women to protect capitalist interests.
It’s a tactic to encourage impressionable people to join ‘for glory’ or prestige when in reality there is very little of either. First hand accounts of literally any war will tell you this.
You could use this same tactic for teachers but historically teaching is seen as a ‘woman’s’ job and so the existing value structures of our society preclude this profession from the same veneration. I.e. the patriarchy is why teachers aren’t glorified in the same way.
I think it’s worth noting that the “glorifying soldiers” tactic doesn’t really work; the US military routinely falls short of recruiting goals, and among people who do join, patriotism isn’t a common given reason.
Whoosh
The public school system, especially middle which is age 11-13/14 I think, almost never used my accommodations :) at least college is better at that
Soldiers and patriotism…
While travelling in the states, I was so perplexed to see that in some car parks where you’d expect to see disabled parking that there were parking spots for veterans.
id argue that that’s not true but my roommate and his friend made me watch 30+ minutes of commentated (by my friends) WW2 footage. i had to be like “hey man with all due respect i get the appeal I think but im not really interested in the glorification of something this horrific im sorry.” they were understanding but that level of interest in something so bleek was crazy.
also they were using WW2 japenese slurs and saying id walk up to that if i were there. and im like NO THE FUCK YOU WOULDNT you wouldnt even make it out of the armored car that took you there bud. people are not as badass as they think they are and soldiers arent badass they just want to see their families again we dont have to cheer them on like the opposing side doesnt also just wanna go home to their families.
ugh
Sticker price isn’t the price you pay at the till. Why? Why do you do that.
Massive gaps between the walls and doors of public lavatory cubicles. This is not some mystical, advanced technology. Get it together.
We do that because our country is founded on the “right” for moneymakers to put as much onto the customer as they can get away with. Hence things like tipping culture.
No offense but how thick do you have to be to make a door that is put in place solely to shield you from other humans, have a massive gap?
It seriously boggles my mind.
It’s not about doing it right for most. It’s about saving every dime you can. There are some that properly enclose stalls, like a nationally known Magic card seller in my locale.
I think the toilet wall thing is because we have an expectation that every public building must have public toilets available. Places don’t want you to fuck or shoot up in the bathrooms, so they make them un-private so you hurry the hell up and leave. It’s a bit of hostile architecture, like making park benches that you can’t lie down on to keep people from trying to sleep on them. Make the “undesirables” uncomfortable enough and maybe they’ll go be undesirable somewhere else. Meanwhile it’s just a little bit less nice for everyone else as well.
I’ve seen this conversation many times on Reddit, and from what people say I assume there is a regional thing going on on. I’m from a part of the US where toilet stalls do not have massive gaps. There is a big gap at the bottom but too low for anyone to be seeing under unless they are crawling on the floor. Gaps along the sides are quite narrow. 1 cm at most, and nothing anyone is going to be seeing you through unless they are some kind of freak putting their eye right up to it. These stalls are prefab panels you can easily put into a room. The gaps mean ventilation for the room takes care the stalls too.
I assume stalls started this way and became normalized, and in some parts of the country they’ve gotten sloppier, and sloppier, and normalized these huge gaps I hear people describe but never see.
This might be my bias, but I assume these are the places where everything is a suburban stripmall wasteland, where there are no sidewalks, and where it seems to me the whole environment is increasingly dehumanized.
The US doesn’t have a VAT, but a sales tax on final sale of a good. Not only that, but states, counties, and cities can issue their own sales tax on sales within their borders. There are also cases where sales tax isn’t charged at the register. In the end, it is easier for companies to just charge the tax at the end, so they do.
Two party system. They can’t possibly represent everyone’s interests. Feels more like religion to me .
They don’t represent anyone’s interests except their own.
And those who lobby them and/or help them get reelected.
Two party system is great for polarizing the society.
Divide and conquer.
More precisely: The reason for the two party system: FPTP voting. The Brits do the same shit, and have the same problems.
The way it feels now (more cult-like than political and representing the populace) automatically and unavoidably stems from this FPTP issue. It automatically reduces the whole field to a reduced number of options, and while each reduction step takes longer than the last, this will ultimativley lead to a one-party state. It’s not a question of IF, it’s a question of WHEN and the REP program for 2025 to basically turn the government upside down to get unbeatable is trying to achieve this very single party state.
We do do the same and we do have the same problems, but it’s not so bad. We have at least 4 parties in parliament who have a voice and a number of others who are at least represented. It’s not good, but you have it worse
Two parties that are, if I’m not mistaken, the Right and the Rightest.
Didn’t the USA see any leftist ideology as radical?
The Cold War did some terrible things to our ideology.
They openly call Democrats radical lefties nowadays
We technically have more than 2; but nobody ever votes for the other parties, and the other parties are almost never given the opportunity to debate or have big ad campaigns. 🤷🏻♂️
And to be fair: Some of those other parties are even more narrow minded than the two big ones.
CGP Grey made an excellent video explaining our voting system: Minority Rule: First Past the Post Voting
Skip to 1:36 to hear about how, no matter how many parties we have, it always comes down to 2 major parties competing in this voting system.
I vote for one of those other parties!
The two party system isn’t really codified in law, it’s just kind of a side-effect of the way we vote and the way government is organized. Due to those two things, it’s hard to change.
It’s an inevitable conclusion of our winner take all voting system. “The man with the most votes wins.” If 4 candidates run, and they get 22% 22% 16% and 40% of the vote, the man with 40% of the vote wins the race, and 60% of the population didn’t get the candidate they voted for.
Now imagine you’ve got a red, orange, green and blue party. Orange voters get together and decide "You know, the Red party’s platform is pretty similar to ours, what if we didn’t run a candidate next time and instead encouraged our voters to vote for the Red candidate instead? The blue candidate won with 40% of the vote, but our two parties put together would have 44%.
In the next election with three candidates, the red candidate wins 44% to 40%, prompting a similar conversation at the Green party headquarters. Soon enough there are two parties.
We’re one of if not the oldest representative democracy in the world today; our constitution is 250 years old, there’s some old bugs still in the code base.
Basically because we were early adopters to modern republic systems. We tried something new because parliament was a bit too kingy for our tastes. But due to its simplicity it became really easy for two parties to wipe the floor with everyone else. And basically the only times they’ve changed was at the start and again shortly before our civil war. Neither party has ever had good reason to change the system, which would require massive agreement to change our constitution. So nobody does.
For example, politically I’m a syndicalist, but the democrats are pro union, pro environment, pro woman, and pro lgbt, all of which with a big asterisk but still I consistently vote for them because the greens didn’t win with Nader so they’re definitely going to lose now. So I dutifully vote Democrat because the only other party that has a chance is the republicans and they hate me and everything I believe in.
If we could do it again we’d do it better but in our defense we didn’t really have anyone to model off of
Jokes on you, in the end they both represent the same interests
It’s like a restaurant with a single dish and you can only chose a side. One’s xenophobia with a sprinkle of batshit crazy, the other’s utter impotence.
American here. Hate it, hate it, hate it.
First Past the Post voting makes it more likely: https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo?si=X-8oz1K6iYxKhBeB
As an American, I find it amazing that countries can have more than two active parties but also have a plurality voting system.
Tipping
Also, losing their shit over nudity
Puritans for the latter.
Bribery / slavery for the former.
While having a huge porn industry.
Huh, the US and Japan aren’t so different.
We have tipping in Europe, but that’s mostly only done if you have a very good experience, not because you are expected to. Just pay your employees.
The whole Guns thing
Keeping your gun accessible when driving your car. Needing or wanting to open carry when you go shopping. Needing to pose with your family all holding powerful guns for a Christmas photo. I don’t get it.
Most of America doesn’t do it, just the people who are afraid of violence - which also happens to the same people who would quickly resort to violence. At this point, seeing a person wearing a gun is the same as seeing warning colors on other species like insects. If you see it, turn and go the other way. There is literally nothing worth the inconvenience of dealing with those people. (And hospitals don’t allow open carry so matters of life and death can be attend to without worry.)
A modern analog I like is to high grade digital encryption.
Terrorists and criminals use it, and governments want to ban it. But that doesn’t actually mean it should be banned, or that people who oppose a ban are terrorists or criminals.
Totally, except regulating encryption makes much more sense because of al those encryption-violence deaths that happen daily in the US. All those kids with easy access to encryption going to school and encrypting their classmates, the policemen not intervening because they are afraid to get encrypted by the kids armed with military grade AES-512 routines.
It is a modern analog, but with its limits - all this stuff doesn’t happen in countries where encryption is much more regulated and you can’t buy encryption routines in malls.
Your comment comes off as shallow and dismissive. I’d be happy to discuss this further, but not under those conditions.
I thought @draghetta made a good point in way that wasn’t particularly shallow or dismissive. Not trying to stir hostility here, just throwing in my 2 currency subunits.
To clarify, I disagree because you’re both missing my point, which is to explain and help people understand, and not an argument put forward in justification of anything.
Responding to an attempt to help bridge a gap of understanding by sarcastically dismissing any value in the analogy without even attempting to understand why it’s being offered is, to me, a dismissive and shallow thing to do.
I disagree.
What a shallow and dismissive thing to say
deleted by creator
What would you suggest?
That’s not a great analogy though… you would have to add that, even though most people use it responsibly, banning digital encryption would cause a very dramatic reduction in harm caused by the people that don’t use it responsibly.
Furthermore digital encryption actually serves an inherent purpose so banning it would also cause some harm to society simultaneously. On the other hand, civilian gun ownership serves no inherent purpose so society wouldn’t be harmed by banning it, and we would only lose the risk.
But but but what if they get fascists in power! What if a bunch of goons attempt a coup!
Your gun will help a lot against the military…
Yeah, but it’s way harder to kill someone accidentally (or in a fit of rage) with high grade digital encryption than with a firearm.
Guns are the only reliable way to deal with tyrants. And while its not everytime, look at what happens to disarmed populations usually.
Also gun control started as and still is racist.
You had a tyrant that tried to overthrow a legitimate election through violence.
Where were all gun nuts then? Those who weren’t attempting said coup, that is. Doesn’t sound reliable to me.
As for what happens to disarmed populations, most of Europe has gun control laws that would make any American have a heart attack, and yet here we are, no dictators to be seen up to GMT+3. Do say, what is it that happens to disarmed populations? What is happening to us that I somehow didn’t notice?
And gun control being racist… I’m sorry, what? This right here, this is the thing I’ll never understand about Americans. Everything is racist. You can’t talk about anything, somebody will play the “racist” card before you can get any deeper than slogans. Absolutely every single thing turns out to be a race issue. Sure, you guys had very big issues with racism until very recently (learning about sundown towns for me was a huge WTF moment) and it’s very hard to deal with a past so ugly - but still, maybe not everything is about race.
In America, gun control started as a way to disarm black people. Worked out well when the Klan wanted to lynch someone. Thats what was racist about it.
Sounds like the usual American retcon… you have a race obsession now so everything all the time was about race. A bit like Marx, who was obsessed with class struggle so literally every single event in history was actually a class struggle.
Also if you search online you’ll find plenty of articles they say they gun control is perceived as a racial issue, because gun control damages the rights of whites - with similarly flimsy arguments and mental gymnastics.
It’s almost as if it’s all bullshit.
Then why did the NRA start to get more “senesable gun control and not all gun owners are trustworthy” after the black panthers started to carry guns in the open
deleted by creator
King George is the funny answer.
The Taliban insurgency is a much more recent one.
The viet cong fought the USA and won.
The IRA fought well.
I can keep going, but its easier to just link a wiki page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions
That rascally rabbit isn’t a tyrant just because he keeps tricking you. I know you’re traumatized but he doesn’t actually have power over you. It’s all in your head.
I don’t know about the racism thing, but I doubt it. As far as the other thing, it doesn’t have to be a choice between no guns or no restrictions. In the UK we have a ban on handguns and some hoops you have to jump through to own a rifle. Nothing too onerous I believe (though I’ve never tried to own a gun.)
I’m not afraid of our government becoming tyrannical. If it did, though, and guns are really the only reliable way to deal with them (I’m not convinced but anyway) then we still have plenty going around.
If youre in the UK, what did the IRA use to fight the British in the Troubles?
The ones that won, they used diplomacy. The armed conflict only ruined and made peoples lives miserable. Here’s a doc you can listen to first hand accounts from members of the IRA. https://www.pbs.org/show/once-upon-time-northern-ireland/
Not disagreeing with you, but - you’ll have to admit, it’s a lot easier to have diplomatic talks when your side has a credible threat behind it. Do you think the Brits would have listened if the IRA had just done peaceful sit-ins?
Bombs mostly and they were always illegal.
What about it? Going to go bang, explosions are fun. Shooting people bad. What else did you want to know?
-signed Bleeding heart lefty with a gun
At-will employment makes no sense to me. You go to work every day knowing you could be fired without any possibility of taking the time to find another job. It would drive me crazy.
Oh it’s terrifying.
You should not compare that to employment as it is known in other countries.
Rather compare it to slavery. Doesn’t it look better now? ;-)
The flip side is we can quit at anytime.
Yeah, that really doesn’t make up for it.
I mean, I’ll take the months notice period and knowing I get redundancy if my job goes over being able to quit a bit faster.
So like mid-shift or are there any limits to this?
I quit by showing up 3 hours early and sent an eff you I’m out email. Dropped my badge on my desk and walked out without talking to anyone.
No. You just tell someone above you that you quit, and then leave.
You could walk out without telling anyone, but that’s rare. Depends on how shitty the job is.
Nope. I literally walked into work, dropped off my badge, said I quit and never looked back. HR called and I let it go to voicemail. They wanted to confirm my mailing address. A few weeks later I got my last paycheck. I left that company to change fields and it has never come up as an issue in subsequent roles. Quitting without notice is a fantastic perk that almost no one will be able to use. The key is to burn out early so looking for the next job is just around the corner.
I’m sorry I don’t get why this is a perk.
In here we have mandatory notice up to three months depending on tenure. It’s perfectly normal for new employers to have to wait the notice period when hiring a new person. Mind you, that’s 3 more guaranteed pay checks after you quit.
If you want to leave early you can negotiate a shorter notice, which i personally have never seen refused - normally people don’t want to keep leavers around so they’ll agree to a couple of weeks for handovers and then happily send you away with your (mandatory, tenure based) severance bonus.
If your old employer is petty and wants to keep you around for the whole notice you can just stop caring and carry on with the bare minimum. What are they going to do, fire you? Unless you’re causing them serious damage in that time they can’t do anything about it. That is also why employers tend to be very happy when you try to negotiate a short notice period.
I can understand how satisfying it must be to show up, slam your badge on somebody’s desk and say “fuck you I quit” - but other than those two seconds of joy I don’t see any other benefits.
There’s no negotiating anything with at will employment. You just leave if you want to leave.
You can negotiate if you want to. Or you can say fuck off and just get another job somewhere else. That’s the freedom of it. You’re not locked into any type of contact.
Yeah but I don’t understand how that’s better. Your employer has to agree to keep you around longer rather than the other way around, feels much worse for financial well-being. But even if it was the same, there’s no way that’s worth having zero notice firing without just cause.
It feels a bit like cope ngl- like yeah I’m doing chemo I can’t eat anything but flavourless meal replacements but look I’ve never been slimmer! That’s a remarkable perk!
I don’t get it either. Ignoring the inherent power imbalance between a single worker and an employer, good luck getting Gardening Leave in an at-will workplace.
Depending on your contract, you can absolutely just leave mid shift with no repercussions. Even if you breach your contract, the company will have to pursue legal action to claim any damages, which is costly.
I mean, I don’t live in an at-will state and I can quit at any time too.
So you live in Montana?
… because that’s the only one.
I guess that also makes it somewhat easier to get hired though? You can give your employees a chance without thinking too much about it, and if they suck just fire them.
We have this in Germany - for the first six months of employment. Ok, it’s still two weeks notice because that’s the right thing to do, but still, it’s less than the 1/2/3/4/5/6/7 months of notice required after working at a place for 0.5/5/8/10/12/15/20 years. (BGB §622 for the curious)
There is no reason to keep the possibility for such a short notice indefinitely.
For the most part, in my experience, don’t be a fuck up and you won’t get fired. Every company I’ve ever worked for has had very strict rules about firing people, It can take months for someone to get fired for anything short of violence, theft, or sexual harassment.
Thanks for the answer. It’s clearer now.
Some companies having strict rules isn’t a stand-in for decent workers protections.
Employers don’t have protections from employees flaking out either. It goes both ways.
Yeah, there’s quite a power imbalance there …
Only if you’re easily replaceable.
No, then there’s still a power imbalance, only slightly less egregious.
This is true. No idea why you’re being downvoted. There are tons of protections in place for workers in at-will states.
Nope. You can just get laid off for “no reason.”
No you can’t.
Labor laws are a very real thing.Yes, that’s the entire point of “at-will” employment.
There are protected classes, but “for no reason” is quite legal in most states, which is the terrible reality. US labor laws suck.
That depends on where you’re working. If you’re working for a company in an industry that tends to lay people off at certain times, then yeah you’re probably to be laid off in the future. Most companies aren’t like that though.
They will say of themselves as being Irish/Italian/other-european-nationality because their great-grandfather or great-grandmother came from there.
A “politics” channel on a site called Lemmy.World that is specifically only for US politics, because America is the world.
The obsession with mutilating baby boy’s penises.
Vote for people who actively oppose universal healthcare, mandatory PTO policies, universal family leave policies, universal college-level education, etc.
City design and suburbs. Like if I had to drive 40 minutes to get groceries I would prefer to starve and those suburbs look like death would be the better alternative. Also driving to go for a walk, wtf?
City zoning.
Oh, i have to drive from single family zone to commercial district to pick up a loaf of bread. Then drive to education district to drop kids at kindergarten, and finally to business district to work. At the end of the day i hang out at bar/entertainment district with the guys from work to have a beer, but there’s no public transport so I have to drink alcohol free so I can drive back home. That’s only 120 miles in a day!
The way politicians and the political system nakedly serves the needs and interests of corporations and the wealthy, and not the average individual.
The way that the price you’re quoted invariably gets bumped up by various taxes.
The insane system that is tipping, including the fact that a lot of workers are so underpaid that they rely on tips to get by.
The incessant adverts on TV for medical products, particularly prescription drugs.
Voting registration. I get a letter that I can vote and what the options are. Then on voting day, which is on a Sunday, because why would it be on any other day, I just walk into my town hall with that letter and my ID card, put down my crosses and leave. It’s like a walk in the park, often quite literally.
Healthcare, electoral college, how supreme court justices are elected, first past the post voting system.
Edit: and the self assurance to nitpick a foreigner over the details of how justices come into their job.
The EC is a mechanism to make the Presidential election less democratic.
Supreme Court Justices aren’t elected at all. The President nominates a judge and the Senate votes to approve that person for the post.
FTtP voting is bad. It’s just awful. The more you understand it the clearer that becomes.
Healthcare… no cap, we don’t understand it, either. It’s a mess.
What’s not to understand about your healthcare? It’s the one thing you literally cannot live without. Make the barrier to it $$$ (and tie it to your employment) means you’ll always have a subdued work force, and a big money funnel for the wealthy.
That’s only the start and even then not quite accurate. I don’t have insurance through my employer, for example: I used to have it through the government and now I have private, and before either I just bought healthcare with cash on the barrelhead.
And the thing is, paying cash is usually less than half of the price charged to insurers, even if you set up a payment plan, because individuals are easier to get to pay than the insurance corporations. And there’s ab additional discount for paying day-of-service because then they don’t even need to send a bill and they know they’ll actually get paid! So it can be a lot cheaper to buy healthcare in cash, depending on how much you need.
But now let’s say you have government insurance: Very good on preventative care, pediatrics, prenatal. Everything generally performed in-house and same-day, but scheduling is a crapshoot. Still the simplest insurance option once you have it.
Employer-provided insurance: My ex-employer, two jobs and half a decade ago, is still fighting with their insurance provider at the time about a hospital visit I had back then. Insurance says it wasn’t withing coverage dates, HR can prove otherwise.
Private insurance (but also employer insurance): Actual healthcare providers don’t know and don’t care if services are within network; which can change on a whim anyway, so someone who was in network when you schedule an appointment might be out-of-network three months later when you finally get in there. Since you can’t just schedule with a specialist without a referral, it takes at least two months and two appointments to see one, often more like six months, and whether or not your insurance will pay for it is up in the air anyway. And you’re paying hundreds of dollars each month for this “service”. It’s insane.
And this is for a young family in relatively good health seeking preventative care. I can’t even image this nightmare of corporatism and bureaucracy with a chronic condition or an emergency.
Supreme Court justices aren’t elected.
The Electoral College exists because it was never the intent for the President to be elected by the public. It sticks around because changing it requires changing the Constitution, and a majority of states benefit from the status quo.
There is a plan for its abolishment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUX-frlNBJY&pp=ygUXdG9wIHNuZWFreSBwbGFuIGNncGdyZXk%3D
How any judge is just elected…
deleted by creator
If justice isn’t democratic then nothing is.
