[Deluge]

Really curious to see how Americans would react to this. Thoughts?

[WanderingSoul]

For me, I think it's funny. I aint the type of guy to get offended over shit though.

I've got quite a few European friends on Facebook from when I was in Thailand and see this picture quite a few times. It cracked me up.

[Duke Castile]

I think I can single handedly correct these imgages without breaking a sweat.

Metric system - nah bro- The US was the first place where theoretically freedom would rule. Up until this point, you had to inherit or steal wealth. The reason for the mile instead of the kilometer and every other measurement was because the founding fathers wanted to be DIFFERENT from the oppressive gov'ts they came from. Geniuses like Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would have languished in obscurity in their motherland simply because of the structure of that society

Encourages freedom of speech - tries to censor internet- Voice of the people heard, will not happen.

Home of the brave - scared of gays - No one is scared of gays. Gays are not scary. Who you prefer to fuck shouldn't allow you special rights. But since they're a "minority" they are protected by specific wording in the Constitution. Like Black people before them, the wording in that original document is what allowed them to receive fair treatment under the law. Conceded, much difficulty ensued from trying to enforce those protections but it's a testament to the good of the US for getting it done.

Sopa addressed

Nukes Japan twice - Recalls Pearl Harbor- This is a good one since most people don't know the true story behind the Atomic bomb but, Prior to dropping those bombs pilots risked their lives to drop literally MILLIONS of flyers over Japanese cities saying "The US is not at war with the people of Japan and wishes no harm upon them, please vacate major cities" etc etc warning them about the impending bombing. The Japanese had a large part of their military embedded withing these cities. Even after the 2nd bomb and the Imperial leader (I can't remember the title but he was regarded as a god) of Japan decided to surrender, some of his generals tried to assassinate him while he was on his way to send that message to the US. US Battle commanders estimated that they would suffer over a million casualties trying to invade Japan. The deathtoll would have been in the millions if those bombs hadn't dropped and in fact, they SAVED the lives of a lot of people because of Japans surrender.

You can't equate that with an unprovoked surprise attack on Pearl Harbor

Sopa addressed

Has enough food to feed 90% of the world - eats all by itself - The United States gives quite a bit of money in foreign aid from taxing it's citizens at the point of a gun, not to mention the work done by private charities. Keep in mind, someone else's need is not a mortgage on any American's life. I don't owe someone because they need something.

Supports protests In Egypt and Libya - ignores protests in own country - I don't know what that's referring to. If it's the occupy wall street crowd, that's retarded. Gov't is the problem for the economy crashing. Wall Street played by the Gov'ts rules (and the gov't should not be involved at all imo) and a logical conclusion happened

Complains about hardships - doesn't get shot at etc - I don't think most Americans are complaining without cause. That's just imo

So, to answer your question, I think that whoever made these has quite a bit of misconceptions to correct

[username]

I am (US) American and I laughed at all of the images, they are funny.

My take on each:
Metric system - Really? Such a lame thing to complain about.
Free speech/Censors Internet - Very true.
Scared of gays - Not really, just some have different beliefs.
Criticizes China/SOPA - Very true again.
Nukes Japan/Pearl Harbor - Not really. The government never brings up Pearl Harbor. The people that bring up Pearl Harbor are often racist idiots.
Promotes SOPA using Copyrighted - I don't know what they are referencing.
90% Food, Eats All - What bothers me is that the United States has paid billions to farms to destroy their crops in efforts to keep food prices high. At the same time this waste water and resources.
Protest in Egypt/Libya - What protest? The handful of 99%ers? Get real. In Egypt and Libya whole cities were shutdown, nothing even close to this happen in the United States.
Complains about Hardships - This is very true, (US) Americans love to complain about stupid things and how terrible their lives are when in reality their lives are easier than most of the world.

[Thorfinnsson]

It annoys me because like most people I will reflexively defend my homeland when it is criticized by foreigners.

[Vitriol]

I agree with a lot of it. Our leadership in the U.S. has been terrible for the past thirty years or so and most of our laws cater to Christianty (anti-homosexuality, censorship) or wealthy individuals and businesses (anti-piracy). People who aren't either very religious or wealthy really haven't had many positive things done for them in the past couple of decades.


The one thing I don't agree with is the thing about how everyone has so much food here. Yes, there are a lot of cows walking the streets, but there's also a large percentage of the U.S. that lives in poverty. In the aggregate this is a wealthy country because of so many pro-athletes and movies stars, but the vast majority of Americans are broke.

[jariel]

(01-24-2012 03:00 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

Like Black people before them, the wording in that original document is what allowed them to receive fair treatment under the law.

I think it's insulting to co-opt the plight of gay people with the one of Blacks.

I get that that's part of the plan, and not saying that was your intention, but it comes across that way.

At the end of the day though, one chooses to be gay.

Homophobia doesn't make sense to me because I've never met anyone who fears gays.

[Moma]

Vitriol - Please explain broke to me. Is it in comparison to the guys driving fat whips and buying up bottle service or does it mean that they cannot achieve the basic human essentials - food, water and shelter?

Fisto - Addressing the complaining without a cause. I find there is definitely a culture of complaining in North America. I have not lived in America for an extended period of time but Toronto is a close enough approximation of America.

Every year, you hear them complaining. Oh, I don't want to work, I just want to live on the beach all day and drink pina coladas and eat seafood.

Ohh, I am getting so fat, Moma you never put on weight blah blah.

It seems to be a culture of wanting a quick fix for everything in North America. E.g. I want to learn <insert target language> but I don't want to have to live amongst <insert target language> speakers. I want this magic CD that will suddenly transform my brain into understanding <target language>.

You say there is no complaining without a cause. There is a cause for everything but the question is, is it an acceptable cause?

I could shyt on your carpet because I just didn't feel like getting up and going to your toilet. That is a cause, yes, but is it acceptable in the grand scheme of things.

Just opening up some philosophy here. Don't take it as hating.

[Basil Ransom]

These are cheap retarded criticisms. There are fair intelligent criticisms of America - look at Roosh's posts, for instance - and these aren't it. This is what happens when you give some self-important hack MS Paint and internet access. Because they're retarded and false, I don't find them funny. The map posted by Rio Nomad is pretty funny though, and somewhat realistic. Honestly though, I've lived in Europe, and I find average Europeans to be just as provincial as Americans. The only difference is that we export our admittedly shitty pop culture, and we don't import theirs.

SOPA - had no popular support, and there are similar bills in other Western countries like France.
Metric System - The Imperial system is a holdover from our English origins. It works for us, and it's built in. Honestly, the only people who whine about this hate America anyway, and this is just another bee in their bonnet.
Censorship - Also doesn't enjoy popular support, and a bullshit charge anyway. The US still has a superior record on free speech than probably every other Western country. I can't think of any other major power (Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Italy, Canada...) that has a superior record on freedom of speech.
Nukes Japan - The Japanese were our sworn enemies, Pearl Harbor was a catastrophe for the US. Of course we commemorate one and mostly ignore the other. To do otherwise would be pure self-hatred.
Complains about hardships - true on an absolute level perhaps, but we're no worse than our peers. Show me a developed nation where people don't complain. Look at France, where any time modest reforms to pensions are proposed, the whole country shuts down in protest.
Food - Probably flat out wrong. Quote "Although the United States produces only 10 percent of world wheat (1993/94-2007/08 average), it is consistently the world’s biggest wheat exporter."
Gays - we're not scared of them.

Quote:

Homophobia doesn't make sense to me because I've never met anyone who fears gays.

How about Uganda? They have pretty fierce penalties for homosexuals. But homosexuals have an absurdly high level of sexual activity, compared to heterosexuals, and engage in sexual acts that boost the transmission rates of venereal diseases, i.e. anal sex. In a place with poor drinking, sewage and health systems, i.e. Uganda or the entire world pre-1900 say, homophobia is pretty reasonable on that basis alone. Would you share the village well with a homosexual with hundreds of partners?

Credit to The Cold Equations for this blog post (the blog is now down):

Quote:

Half Sigma recently bashed the gays. And by bashing the gays, I mean noticing the negative consequences of tolerance of homosexuality, both to homosexuals and to everyone else. Half Sigma blames the AIDS plague on homosexuals. I'm sure he's right - if there were no gays, there would be very few HIV+ people, at least in the West. And if homosexuality was still suppressed as it was in the past, most gays were still in the closet, and vice cops were keeping a lid on promiscuous gay behavior, the HIV epidemic would be much less prevalent than it is now. It might even be non-existent.

You can say that the problem is gay promiscuity or unsafe gay sex rather than homosexuality per se, but the two are hard to separate. Gay men are, first and foremost, men, with promiscuous instincts, and promiscuity is what happens when a bunch of naturally promiscuous people want to fuck each other. If women had the same inclinations as men, heterosexuals would be equally promiscuous (though still not as likely to transmit HIV because vaginal sex is less likely to do that), but they don't, so they aren't.

Besides the direct tragedy of people dying AIDS, the AIDS population is a reservoir of other diseases that can affect anyone. For example, the AIDS epidemic has played a role in the reemergence of tuberculosis, which can affect people who don't show up in the HIV statistics. Treatment for HIV and related conditions has been expensive, and not all of the expenses have been borne by the direct victims - tax dollars pay for antiretrovirals too. And HIV research has sucked up many research dollars that could have been spent on other things. Chances are that other people have died because the funding for research that would have saved their lives went to HIV instead, although there's no way to know who suffered in this case.

The price of tolerating homosexuality has not been cheap.

But it has been bearable. We have been living with all of these problems, are for most of us they are fairly minor concerns. The costs have mainly accrued to the gays themselves, and they show no indication of wanting to go back into the closet. Excepting the unlucky few heterosexuals who have suffered from AIDS or related illnesses, most of us have much bigger problems than the costs of homosexuality and HIV. I'm not going to say that I'm pro gay-rights, but the issue is unimportant enough to me that this is the first time I've mentioned it on this blog.

But what if there had been a gay rights movement 100 years previously?

Here's an excerpt from a bio of a "clap doctor" who specialized in treating promiscuous gay men:

In the mid-seventies, Sonnabend's office was crowded with people suffering from syphilis and gonorrhea of the penis, the mouth, the anus. Chlamydia was also rampant in the gay community. But there was a lot more than the clap walking through Sonnabend's door. Hepatitis B was almost epidemic, and even tuberculosis was making a comeback. Oral and anal herpes were so common they barely were worth a mention to those infected. Sonnabend thought the gay population, at least the slice of it he was seeing in the Village, was clearly sicker, with stranger diseases, than the populace at large.

In the late seventies, a new wave of disease hit his community parasites. Amebiasis, giardia lamblia, shigellosis, and cryptosporidium, a parasite that usually inhabits the bowels of sheep. These enteric diseases are caused when certain organisms get into peoples, gastrointestinal tracts. How they were getting there was no mystery. The parasites are present in fecal matter. Anal intercourse increases the chances of the parasites infecting one or both sex partners. But the growing popularity of rimming, or oral-anal intercourse, in the late seventies provided an almost perfect vector for these parasites to enter parts of the body unaccustomed to their presence.

Note that this was in the seventies, before the HIV epidemic.

1970s medicine was capable of treating or at least managing most of those diseases - a course of antibiotics would take care of most STDs. Being gay or living among gays was harmful, but tolerable. But, in an earlier era, unrestricted homosexuality would have been a complete disaster. Diseases that are curable with few pills would have been fatal or very harmful. More so when you throw AIDS into the mix. Prevention would have been much more difficult because there was no such thing as latex condoms. I'm not sure if they even had anything capable of making sex safe, but if they did, I'm sure it felt like fucking a saddlebag, so people wouldn't have used it. Fecal parasites would have made their way into the water, so everybody would have suffered from giardia and other parasites spread by rimjobs.

I quote Michael Blowhard again:
Modernism: Endless experiments based in theory and speculation, very few of which work out. Tradition: Practices based in experience that almost always succeed.

Indeed, the gay rights experiment would have blown up in the faces of our ancestors if they had tried it. The traditional position is still right, but it's not as right as it used to be. Technology has enabled us to break with tradition at a tolerable cost.

"Us" meaning first-world Westerners. In poor countries, they're no more tolerant of gays than our "benighted" ancestors. I've spoken to people from rural, third-world backgrounds who absolutely loath gays and would consider it just to kill them. In their countries, medical treatment for giardia, chlamydia, or tuberculosis is harder to come by, let alone expensive, cutting-edge antiretrovirals. If they opened up bathhouses, the results would be about the same as they would have been in 19th century America. Is it a coincidence that they both couldn't handle and don't tolerate homosexuality? I don't know, but it's probably just as well.

[jariel]

(01-24-2012 12:29 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

How about Uganda? They have pretty fierce penalties for homosexuals. But homosexuals have an absurdly high level of sexual activity, compared to heterosexuals, and engage in sexual acts that boost the transmission rates of venereal diseases, i.e. anal sex. In a place with poor drinking, sewage and health systems, i.e. Uganda or the entire world pre-1900 say, homophobia is pretty reasonable on that basis alone. Would you share the village well with a homosexual with hundreds of partners?

I'm not sure fearing the byproducts is the same as fearing the individuals.

But it's interesting you mention Africa. In many African languages there's no way to describe the behavior, as a result, some have argued that being homosexual is not the nature of African people. If we look at the origins of homosexual behavior, at least in terms of it being openly acknowledged, I would tend to agree.

Here's a question for you, why have Western powers threatened to abandon aid to Africa if their nations didn't recognize gay rights?

Do they really care about gay African people or is the plot more sinister?

Given that there has never been a value placed on African life, I'd say the latter.

[Vitriol]

(01-24-2012 12:23 PM)Moma Wrote:  

Vitriol - Please explain broke to me. Is it in comparison to the guys driving fat whips and buying up bottle service or does it mean that they cannot achieve the basic human essentials - food, water and shelter?

There are quite a few people who are literally homeless and sleep on the streets or in public areas who have no access to necessities and survive by begging.

Then there are tons of other people who make maybe 25k a year or less, where if their car breaks down, they have health problems, or lose a job, they're literally going to have no way to pay for the unforseen event and could very well either end up homeless or surviving on Top Ramen for a couple of months in order to pay their bills.

As a proportion of the entire population there are very few people driving expensive whips and popping bottles. See the most recent census data: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-5734...ow-income/

[PDX]

(01-24-2012 03:00 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

Metric system - nah bro- The US was the first place where theoretically freedom would rule. Up until this point, you had to inherit or steal wealth. The reason for the mile instead of the kilometer and every other measurement was because the founding fathers wanted to be DIFFERENT from the oppressive gov'ts they came from. Geniuses like Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would have languished in obscurity in their motherland simply because of the structure of that society

Feet, miles, etc are "imperial units". They come from England.

[Moma]

(01-24-2012 01:00 PM)Vitriol Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 12:23 PM)Moma Wrote:  

Vitriol - Please explain broke to me. Is it in comparison to the guys driving fat whips and buying up bottle service or does it mean that they cannot achieve the basic human essentials - food, water and shelter?

There are quite a few people who are literally homeless and sleep on the streets or in public areas who have no access to necessities and survive by begging.

Then there are tons of other people who make maybe 25k a year or less, where if their car breaks down, they have health problems, or lose a job, they're literally going to have no way to pay for the unforseen event and could very well either help up homeless or surviving on Top Ramen for a couple of months in order to pay their bills.

As a proportion of the entire population there are very few people driving expensive whips and popping bottles.

So, you are saying that the average American is broke, am I correct? Can you put a dollar figure on broke. What is the minimum a person has to be earning in America to be broke? Break it down as per a single person being broke and a family of let's say 2 kids, husband and wife being broke.

[PDX]

(01-24-2012 02:17 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

Really curious to see how Americans would react to this. Thoughts?

The thing about America is, for better or worse, we don't really have a cohesive culture. (This is mostly due to size, diversity, and geography.)

What offends one person isn't going to to another.

As with most internet memes, most are going to be pretty stupid/inaccurate, a few chuckle-worthy, and a few spot-on.

[Thorfinnsson]

Have you ever been abroad? The moment you find yourself in a country where you can't find beef jerky in every gas station and convenience store will make you reconsider your statement. Our culture certainly isn't as cohesive as, say, Finland, but it's cohesive enough that one can easily distinguish it from any other country.

[Caligula]

I'm not American but most of those criticisms are cheap shots. The map is vaguely funny, but nowhere near as funny as this:



Here are a bunch more funny maps from the same place, showing national stereotypes according to various nationalities. We should create one for players.

http://alphadesigner.com/mapping-stereotypes/

Europe according to Berlusconi:

[PDX]

(01-24-2012 01:13 PM)Thorfinnsson Wrote:  

Have you ever been abroad? The moment you find yourself in a country where you can't find beef jerky in every gas station and convenience store will make you reconsider your statement. Our culture certainly isn't as cohesive as, say, Finland, but it's cohesive enough that one can easily distinguish it from any other country.

I don't conflate convenience stores with "culture".

[Spike]

Haha, great maps

[el mechanico]

(01-24-2012 01:08 PM)Moma Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 01:00 PM)Vitriol Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 12:23 PM)Moma Wrote:  

Vitriol - Please explain broke to me. Is it in comparison to the guys driving fat whips and buying up bottle service or does it mean that they cannot achieve the basic human essentials - food, water and shelter?

There are quite a few people who are literally homeless and sleep on the streets or in public areas who have no access to necessities and survive by begging.

Then there are tons of other people who make maybe 25k a year or less, where if their car breaks down, they have health problems, or lose a job, they're literally going to have no way to pay for the unforseen event and could very well either help up homeless or surviving on Top Ramen for a couple of months in order to pay their bills.

As a proportion of the entire population there are very few people driving expensive whips and popping bottles.

So, you are saying that the average American is broke, am I correct? Can you put a dollar figure on broke. What is the minimum a person has to be earning in America to be broke? Break it down as per a single person being broke and a family of let's say 2 kids, husband and wife being broke.

Moma, A broke family here can get section 8 housing (free) food stamps and medicade(free insurance) even free preschool/daycare for the kids.

Many investors prefer section 8 for their rentals because it's a guaranteed check even in 250,000 houses.

Many single moms live off this and spotty child support.

A single person can get the same things if they can prove a medical condition but anyone can get foodstamps (it's like a credit card) if they don't make too much. Some people get them just to trade the card for drugs.

Without this in my area you could live on about 400 a week without a problem if you're money smart. The local bars customer base will completely shift over 25 cents on the price of a beer or drink if that makes sense.

[jariel]

(01-24-2012 01:32 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  

Many investors prefer section 8 for their rentals because it's a guaranteed check even in 250,000 houses.

As one myself, this is true, but the inspections are a bitch.

Also along with the guaranteed money, you get guaranteed issues with tenants who don't care about the upkeep of your property.

[el mechanico]

(01-24-2012 01:42 PM)jariel Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 01:32 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  

Many investors prefer section 8 for their rentals because it's a guaranteed check even in 250,000 houses.

As one myself, this is true, but the inspections are a bitch.

Also along with the guaranteed money, you get guaranteed issues with tenants who don't care about the upkeep of your property.

It's mind boggling what those fuckers can screw up. I had my main residence rented out for a year and after 2 I'm not done fixing everything.

So what do you think is going to happen here when the cash for that program runs out? I started a thread about this the other day.
http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-9840.html

[Screwston]

I'm not a patriot at all but I'm willing to bet that most America haters would move here in a heartbeat if given the chance.

[thegmanifesto]

(01-24-2012 02:19 PM)houston Wrote:  

I'm not a patriot at all but I'm willing to bet that most America haters would move here in a heartbeat if given the chance.

You would be surprised.

When I saw my cousins in Ireland last summer, we invited them to come visit us in America again.

They had absolutely zero desire to come to visit America.

None. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

[Thorfinnsson]

That just makes them sound like boring people.

I'm not saying they should want to move here, Ireland is perfectly fine these days, but not wanting to visit?

That's deliberately refusing the possibility of interesting new experiences.

[Moma]

(01-24-2012 02:35 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 02:19 PM)houston Wrote:  

I'm not a patriot at all but I'm willing to bet that most America haters would move here in a heartbeat if given the chance.

You would be surprised.

When I saw my cousins in Ireland last summer, we invited them to come visit us in America again.

They had absolutely zero desire to come to visit America.

None. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

Where did they prefer to visit instead, G?