• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      144
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • jpeps@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • sock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

  • merridew@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    156
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • orphiebaby@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • LUHG@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • atomicorange@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • merridew@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This is a thoughtful reply. I will just say that the UK also has public toilets all over the place, and a desire for people to not screw & get high in the cubicles. Ditto many other countries. But I’ve never been anywhere else with this door gap problem, where no-one gets privacy.

        I did once use a UK bathroom in a supermarket where the lighting was all blue, which makes it hard to find a vein to inject. But the doors still closed properly.

        • orphiebaby@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          American here. I like your response and the one you responded to. Thanks for this insight. ^^

        • atomicorange@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m still not sure why there’s a regional difference, my guess is that it’s a quirk of history. We’re more used to it in the US, and there are benefits for the owners of the public toilets, so they don’t change.

          How did we get so used to it? I’m no toilet historian but it could be a (horrible, evil) company had a near monopoly on stall design during a formative part of our architectural history. Could just be the newness and utilitarianism of a lot of American architecture in general. We kind of sprung up overnight and so sometimes bad ideas got caught up in that wave of “progress” and became the norm due to being in the right place at the right time, and not really because they were good ideas or ideas that worked. Tipping culture, tax added at the till, and other weird Americanisms could all have similar root causes! Once you’ve gone down the route of something pro-business and anti-consumer, and gotten most people to accept it as normal, there’s no going back in a capitalist society.

    • blackbrook@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • merridew@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Thank you for your comment. I can’t speak for the entire world, but in the UK a 1 cm" gap in the door of a public toilet would be massive and unacceptable. It’s not enough that someone can only see into a stall through a gap in the door if they are “right up to it”; they should not be able to see in at all. Public toilets in other countries have doors with gaps you can’t leer through at all.

        Re. the “gaps meaning ventilation”, surely the “big gap at the bottom” and the fact that the whole top is open will be contributing more to ventilation?

        You say you think this might be a regional thing in the US. Okay, could be. I have personally encountered this issue in Washington, California, North Carolina, DC, Massachusetts, Georgia, Texas, Oregon, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Maryland.

        • blackbrook@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I can understand that to someone not used to this, any gap at all might be troubling and one might tend to exaggerate it as “massive”.

          However note that these walls are fairly thick which narrows any visibility angles considerably. So to really see someone through the gap you would have to be at exactly the right angle and looking straight at them. Sitting on the toilet in one of these you can see some really narrow strip of the sinks area which also reflects the areas in which someone would have to be and looking straight at you to see you. People at the sink area have their back to you. People walking past them to another stall, are not looking to the side.

          I’m not trying to convince you that they are ideal, or that your should like them, just that when the gaps are pretty narrow it is not as big a deal as you might think to get used to.

          Again this is assuming these gaps are pretty narrow. I get the impression from what some Americans have said in other discussion that in some places they are quite a bit wider than I am used to, and what I said above may no longer apply.

          • merridew@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Oh, I absolutely believe that people in America can accept it’s “not as big a deal as you might think”.

            This is a thread about things about America that make no sense. So: I don’t understand why America, seemingly uniquely, accepts this as “not a big deal”.

            It’s weird. Land of the free, home of the public toilets strangers can see inside. So odd.

  • WEAPONX@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    147
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Two party system. They can’t possibly represent everyone’s interests. Feels more like religion to me .

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • daddyjones@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

    • XEAL@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Two parties that are, if I’m not mistaken, the Right and the Rightest.

      Didn’t the USA see any leftist ideology as radical?

    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

    • 4am@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Shapillon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They will say of themselves as being Irish/Italian/other-european-nationality because their great-grandfather or great-grandmother came from there.

  • NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    A “politics” channel on a site called Lemmy.World that is specifically only for US politics, because America is the world.

  • Michal@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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!

  • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Vote for people who actively oppose universal healthcare, mandatory PTO policies, universal family leave policies, universal college-level education, etc.

  • jon@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

  • Knusper@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the thing is, in America people aren’t required to register their residence with the government. At least here in Austria, we are, and that doubles as voter registration if we are eligible to vote. So there is voter registration here too, but it is compulsory.

      • Knusper@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah, if that’s the case, then I can get on board with a separate voting registration. Not sure, I’d prefer it, but at least it’s not just arbitrarily making democracy harder.

        • atomicorange@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Making democracy harder is definitely part of it. Elections are super regional in the US, so states have a ton of control. If a state elects a state government controlled by Party A, that party has a lot of incentive to make it harder for members of Party B to vote next time. So if Party B is mostly young and working class, you make it so elections take place when those people are stuck at work. If Party A is super religious, you make sure that voting spots are near (or inside) churches. If Party B is less likely to have access to a stable address or a driver’s license, you make registering to vote without those difficult, and you maybe wipe the voter rolls occasionally and require re-registration.

          The goal is retaining power and not on strengthening democracy. It’s fucked up, and it’s going to get worse as each party is forced to continue escalating. You can’t fix the system without power, and you can’t get power without undermining the system. We all know something in this country is deeply broken, but we hate and distrust each other too much to work together to fix it.

          • Knusper@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Wow. Over here, we thankfully have more than two parties, so if one party attempts such a thing, the 5+ other parties will denounce that in unison and it becomes pretty clear that it’s not just one of the usual quarrels.
            It also means, you pretty much always have coalitions ruling the country, so not even the ruling parties have a shared interest in pushing anti-democratic horseshit. Many of the smaller parties would in fact really like to see more voters reached, because those are wildcards and not just voting for always the same big parties.

      • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You definitely are required to register your home. Those property taxes aren’t going to pay themselves.

        But you don’t need a home to vote. We went through a whole period in our early history where only land owners were allowed to vote, and generally only white men. It would be discriminatory to not allow homeless people to vote.

        • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Homeless people can vote in Austria too. But they do have to register separately as such. For everyone else, the government already knows where they live (because we are required to register our residences) and uses that information to compile a voter registry .

    • Nurgle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s since the elections are state run, so there’s no central db. Once you register though your electoral experience is a state by state crapshoot.

      Some will make you stand in line for hours forcing you to miss work, others do mail-in ballots with early voting which is kind of awesome.

      • kraftpudding@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wild idea, states should have a central database of the people permanently living there. The fact that they don’t seem to have one is baffling to me.

    • joel_feila@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      oh I know we don’t do it on Sunday. America was so spread out that it took days to get into and kind of town. So you go to church on Sunday then travel on the on Sunday/Monday and and vote on Tuesday.

      • kraftpudding@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, they did what was convenient for those times. I don’t think it’s comvenient anymore though, so why not change it? If people start serving a tradition instead of the tradition serving the people… just get rid of it?

        • joel_feila@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well in the us voting is done on many days. The official election has to held on Tuesday but you have weeks in advance of early voting. You really have to have many days of voting for a population this size.

  • Pandoras_Can_Opener@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • spacecowboy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • JPAKx4@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I remember hearing that Europe doesn’t use drywall nearly as much. A benefit of drywall is cost and repairability, but is basically glorified paper, yes.

      • XEAL@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You don’t have to repair it if you can’t break it.

        Try breaking a brick wall with your head or fists, lol.

      • idunnololz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It also hurts way less if you accidentally hit it as an side benefit. I’m Canadian and we also use drywall for everything.

  • Powerpoint@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Canadian here but still, shoes in house? Gross. Obsession with gun culture? Also gross.

      • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        What I really hate is that it seems like American homes are designed for wearing your shoes indoors. Entryways don’t commonly have enough space next to the doors to put shoes or a shoe caddy, or there’s no nearby wall, so you’d have to put your shoes out in the open.

        I know that may be a dumb excuse, but it always annoys me

    • atomicorange@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Shoes in the house is very regional. I live in Colorado and everyone takes off their shoes just inside the door when visiting. The only exception would be like if someone came to deliver a piece of furniture or something where they need foot protection. Maybe it’s more common where it doesn’t ever snow, to leave them on?

    • XbSuper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Canadian too, I wear my shoes inside. I don’t have kids, and I don’t roll around on the floor, so why would I care?

      • gazter@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        For me, outside is dirty and that’s fine, inside is clean.

        If I stepped in chewing gum or dogshit or even just general grime, I don’t want that inside.

    • forgotaboutlaye@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also Canadian, and never understood it - but in thinking, are there any Canadian shows that show the people in their own house without shoes on?

  • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Guns. Just restrict them, it’s not that hard

    The “winner takes all” political system that ends with two extremist parties and a huge divide between people

    Healthcare. Do I need to say anything?

    The extreme divide between rich and poor

    Police force. They hire lowly educated people, preferably racist, receiving barely any training, and what they do get is mostly nonsense. They then get military equipment, and the entire system is protected by a corrupt union

    The amount that news organizations are allowed to lie