Income is correlated with effort, just inversely

I’m an American immigrant in Germany, and I do encounter US defaultism, but the thing that always strikes me most about American tourists or new Americans studying abroad at the beginning of the semester is almost the opposite. They believe that they can loudly speak English in a college town in public without being overheard or understood and they’re very wrong.

I teach German to new arrivals here, and at least one of my students was in a bar once with an American who reassured him that “nobody understands us,” to which people at two neighboring tables answered that they could just fine.

Of course, the underlying assumption is that Europeans, like Americans, don’t commonly master foreign languages (I don’t necessarily blame Americans for our foreign language skills: it does come up a lot less in the US than in Europe and imo, it’s one of the biggest flaws of our education system that kids often start learning a foreign language at age 11-12, with some districts I’ve heard starting as late as 15-that’s obviously a huge handicap).

The most deeply seated example I know is probably the utter confusion most Americans have at hearing that insulting people is illegal. I don’t hate that insults are forbidden, but my preference would be for them to be legal. That said, during my nearly ten years in Germany and my over twenty years in the US, the majority of Americans I’ve known have held their tongues on uncomplimentary things much more than the majority of Germans. That’s due to a bunch of cultural factors, but the important thing for me is that even though there’s a law that ostensibly limits speech here and not there, the law doesn’t actually cause self censorship or a chilling effect on expression (between the two comparatively, I’m sure there are countries that speak more freely than Germans, and that might be due to a combination of cultural factors and legal protection).

You gotta go to the sketchy clam shacks in New England, not the steakhouses

If you’d like. Mormons, different kinds of Protestant, Jehovas Witnesses, Amish, Hasidic Jews, Muslims, and so many cults off the top of my head (not the links, obviously, but I just wrote out all of the religions associated with pedophilia I remembered from the past few years and went looking for stories). I suspect if I lived around more other religions, I’d be able to remember different ones and you can probably find cases for most religions (I just went looking for an exception, but even Unitarians are not immune).

Specifically she fought to indoctrinate future generations by eliminating any books which did not support her views, writing to all schools and librarians, “Reject any book that says the South fought to hold her slaves”.[29] She was willing to alter the historical record to make her point—in a speech in Dallas in 1916 she claimed that “the negroes in the South were never called slaves. That term came in with the abolition crusade.”[30] Historian David W. Blightstated that she sought the vindication of the Confederacy “with a political fervor that would rival the ministry of propaganda in any twentieth-century dictatorship”.[31]

In 1914, she joined the Georgia Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage and became a “vocal opponent” of women’s suffrage and the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was ratified on August 18, 1920.[20][32] She viewed suffrage as “not a step toward equality, but rather a way of robbing women of the only power they truly held – that of feminine influence and persuasion within their families. Rutherford never reconciled this view with the fact that she herself was one of Georgia’s most publicly active and well-known women of her time”.

Ah, the moral consistency I’ve come to expect from American conservatives.

I hate to break it to you about other religions, too…

Obviously the Catholic Church has a systemic problem, and given that it’s one of the largest religions on earth (and their molester shuffling), it’s more universal than in a lot of religions, and I’m not defending them. They’re only unique in scale though.

Buddhists in China and Buddhists in Myanmar might disagree about religious freedom

Protest idea: a bunch of menstruating people free bleed all over the auditorium, because they were afraid to get up and go to the bathroom. It’s a clear enough biohazard that they’ll have to call a remediation company (who are well paid, educated, and supplied for this type of cleaning work), so it won’t fall to the regular cleaning staff, plus it’s going to specifically gross out the people who support this the most.

At least Michigan, no?

Our teeth aren’t good without fluoride.

Gee, you know what I think dad would have wanted? His widow to be murdered (let’s be realistic here, she’s 86 and they don’t have clean water) in a concentration camp.

OP clearly wasn’t trying to fool anyone or spread disinformation, it’s a meme and you losers are in here demanding a better bibliography.

Providing a better bibliography, in case anyone else wants it.

When the rules are sensible generally, but should be adapted for the current scenario, I tend to be slow on the uptake. Reading this story a few years ago made me realize that I personally am susceptible to losing sight of whether something is actually worth fighting- like I can imagine myself getting stuck on “it’s a fire aisle and now these customers are annoying,” and missing that the other side is thinking “it’s my wheelchair, we need to figure out a way for me to use it.”

Anyway, imagine my surprise when exactly no one, online or irl, even expressed understanding for the actions of the worker at the theater. I don’t think it’s because their actions are incomprehensible to people, but more that, even though this is a very human mistake to make, we’re expected to be able to evaluate whether the rules are picky little bullshit that’s only really important for order or whether they actually matter and should guide our actions.

All that is to say: yes it’s a very human mistake to make, but it’s important for management to be able to determine what rules matter in a life or death scenario. To be clear, I’m definitely not calling this manager a murderer, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect that they knew how they would react, but Amazon should probably roll out some judgment training for managers.

This would be a sick design to copy for a dice bowl

I’m a hairy pothead

Tbh, I used that phrasing specifically because you were snippy about someone else making a claim based on their own experience and I was trying to prod you about the evidence you’re using.

When people kill each other “for no reason,” there’s often still a reason (though not an excuse)- territory in the case of gang or murder of romantic partners, protection or survivor’s benefits for your own family for soldiers killing in war, or people accidentally letting a killer instinct loose during play for people who get into brawls or similar. Even horrific crimes like genocide are committed out of a dual protective of kin/and aggressive of outsiders instinct.

The Wikipedia lists possible reasons, but we don’t actually know why animals do this when it’s actively harmful to them yet.

I don’t see how that supports that humans are one of a few species that kills for no reason, if we know that other animals kill in scenarios where it hurts them and we don’t actually commonly kill each other for no reason.

Probably because she’s got to walk 12-24 miles (unclear if 12mi one way or round trip) and also work six days a week and probably has for many years. That takes a toll on the body, not to mention she’s probably missing out on fully homemade meals because she’s got no time to cook, so she’s ingesting more salt and sugar and microplastics (the added fat is probably balanced out by the walking, but the rest isn’t necessarily) as well as spending more time in the sun, wind, and exposed to exhaust particles and other traffic pollution than most people her age.

I am often confused by this whole community. Sometimes it’s anti rationalists, sometimes it’s anti PC culture, sometimes it’s got posts that clearly involve hours of informed and logical thought about something that most people have never heard of. It generally seems to be leftists against the culture war, but sometimes it seems like it’s actually bigoted. I think that might be a meta strategy to ensure the audience can’t relax into hypnotized agreement, but maybe I’m being unnecessarily charitable.

Tbh, I think it’s that you say putins not smarter than trump, instead of not much smarter. That may be hyperbole, but people are going to treat it as though it’s what you believe unless you specify like you do here

But the propaganda hits us whether we see stonetoss in the corner or not.