How different would USA be seen if...

48 posts

Flag Post

we didn’t overreact to disasters. Yes, school shootings, disasters and 9/11/01 were bad, but to countries/developing nations that are forced to deal with this on a daily basis, are we seen as pussies for reacting so strongly? Assuming we were back in 9/11, how would we be seen as if we just said “It happens. Well, we did need a new trade center anyways.”?

 
Flag Post

Well we probably wouldn’t have many conspiracy theorists… That’s all I got.

 
Flag Post

Are you implying that people all over the world don’t react to individual events? Take a look at the riots in India over a rape. Look at how S Korea reacted to the N Korea rocket launch, and Japan for that matter. Look at how Egyptians reacted to some declarations of a prime minister.

People are drawn to major events, and react strongly to those events, all over the world. They have for thousands of years. Making it out like this is a USA problem, and the rest of the world doesn’t take us seriously because it is a problem only us has, is idiotic, and just another example of “hate America first” mentality. The only reason you are pointing it out is because US news gets more exposure around the world than any other nation. Read about why the “Spanish flu” was called the Spanish flu. It’s all media exposure. Learn to context, for the sake of not looking silly.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

Are you implying that people all over the world don’t react to individual events?

You’re overthinking it.

EDIT:

Originally posted by MyTie:

People are drawn to major events, and react strongly to those events, all over the world. They have for thousands of years. Making it out like this is a USA problem, and the rest of the world doesn’t take us seriously because it is a problem only us has, is idiotic, and just another example of “hate America first” mentality. The only reason you are pointing it out is because US news gets more exposure around the world than any other nation. Read about why the “Spanish flu” was called the Spanish flu. It’s all media exposure. Learn to context, for the sake of not looking silly.

Okay, I really can’t put it into the kind of phrasing I like better, put simply you’re missing the point of SD and threads in it, SD is about discussing a topic, which includes responsding to the discussion starter (when there is one) and not trying to say how wrong someone is for asking a question, because it isn’t the only one.

 
Flag Post
Look at how S Korea reacted to the N Korea rocket launch,

You mean how they didn’t give a shit? South Korea fits the OP’s question perfectly, at least as far as N. Korea’s concerned. But they also riot over foreigners stealing their women, mad cow beef, and more recently, a few shitty islands, so they’re probably not the best example.

Learn to context, for the sake of not looking silly.

hahahaha!

Please. You interpret ANY criticism of America as ‘hate america first’, then presume to lecture about giving proper context?

I’ll admit, it isn’t just a problem with America. It’s the entire developed world, with a few exceptions. Stalin said ‘one death is a tragedy. A million is a statistic.’ Absolutely. Whenever a Canadian soldier gets killed in Afghanistan it’s big news for Canadians. Why? Because we care more about our own than some countless, nameless afghan civilians. I seem to recall a few european countries who actually pulled out of Afghanistan after they lost no more than a few soldiers. The Israelis were spurred into negotiating with Hamas after they kidnapped a single IDF soldier. The list goes on.

The reason the spotlight is on America is yes, because of media coverage. But you can’t hide behind that excuse. Those are American media stations that trumpet American deaths as global tragedies, when they are in fact, American tragedies. Ungezeifer made the point in another thread, and I agree, that this is actually a form of cultural imperialism, one that leaves a bitter taste for many foreigners and more than a few Americans who are aware that there is a world outside of America, a world of people who die, gruesome, unnecessary deaths, a hell of a lot more often than Americans, but receive next to no attention in comparison. There’s a reason why there were plenty of Arab countries who were, at best, lukewarm in their sympathy to 9/11, not because they ‘hate america first’, but because they’ve lost a lot more than 3000 civilians to American-led wars. And what’s the canned response? I’m reminded of Madeleine Albright, US secretary of state during the first Iraq war, who upon hearing that more than a million children had died because of US sanctions, said I think this is a very hard choice, but the price—we think the price is worth it.

It’s a particularly relevant quote these days.

 
Flag Post

tenco – Would this be a legitimate question, that you wouldn’t criticize for the way it was asked: Would people in Greece be taken more seriously if they didn’t react to major events in such isolated ways? I mean, singling out Greeks, or Americans, or any country, takes a legitimate question, and turns it immediately into shit. If I were to single out Greeks, it would be accurately pointed out how that it isn’t endemic to Greece, and people would wonder what I have against Greeks. The only reason people don’t question it when people single out America, is because its currently vogue to mock Americans.

I swear, this is another social double standard. The groups that are ok to single out, and criticise stereotypes are: White, Christian, Men, and Americans. As a white Christian male American, it’s starting to piss me off that it’s socially acceptible to be biased against me, but not cool at all for me to do it back. It’s not that I want to do it back, but being told that I can’t is a level of hypocrisy I can’t take anymore. I’m going to call out the double standards from now on. I don’t care if it is in SD. It’s gonna get called out.

Jan – Ok, I’ll buy it, about the media. Could you give me an example of where American deaths are being trumpeted inaccurately as “global” tragedies?

 
Flag Post

a media example? I was thinking mainly about the connecticut shooting thread where someone described it thus.

edit: here’s one

World leaders, from Australia’s Prime Minister, Julia Gillard to her Canadian counterpart, Stephen Harper, and Britain’s David Cameron all offered their sympathies to those involved in the attack at Newtown.

Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II also sent a message of sympathy to those caught up in the tragedy.

For many, the shooting spree revived memories of previous gun massacres, from Hungerford in the United Kingdom to Tasmania in Australia and Oslo in Norway in 2011.

Two things to consider here:

1) Hungerford? Tasmania? Never heard of a shooting at either. Am I ignorant? Probably. Probably not the only one here though. Oslo refers to the Breivik attack last year, which was memorable certainly…but I suspect it had a lot to do with the sensational details, his manifesto, his ideology, etc. I saw it used in SD for and against gun control, but certainly not as a “we mourn with Norway” thing. So who’s calling these events to mind when they think of the connecticut shooting?

2) A slight revision of the media coverage problem. specifically, why are so many world leaders gushing over this? Why, because those leaders are all american allies. In this regard we’re sorta extending our sympathies from merely national priority (ie. canadians caring about canadian deaths) to, more appropriately, ‘Western’. But America still gets the biggest cut of sympathy – that’s why we still remember Columbine, not because it came first, but because it was popularized for us by an American movie; whatever his motives, you gotta thank Michael Moore for that. And that’s why I suspect, most of us don’t remember Hungerford or Tasmania.

 
Flag Post

Agreed. I think that the American media has a huge presence in the entire world. I’ve been abroad, and it seems like a regular staple. I can imagine people of different countries get worn out on American stuff, and everything bad that the media focuses on. Still, though, I wish that people could see past the sensation.

 
Flag Post

How different would the US be seen? Probably in an unusual way, because that sort of response isn’t (to me) normal for a first-world country which isn’t used to disasters and tragedy on a daily basis.

I don’t think the US goes off into major reaction mode any worse than my own country (UK). Events there tend to catch more media coverage worldwide (or at least, elsewhere in the Anglosphere) but that’s not the fault of Americans.

 
Flag Post

Crap…hang on, the commands aren’t working and it makes my changes to his quote look dumb. I’m gonna see if I can fix it. Okay, rebooting didn’t help. So, I’ll add bold for my words to contrast w/ those of DrOctaganapus. Aha, taking out the cancel commands in the quote seems to allow those of my writing to activate. Hmmmmmmm?

Originally posted by DrOctaganapus2:

How different would we be seen if we Mary Sue didn’t overreact to disasters mishaps in her pampered life?

Yes, school shootings a badly scuffed shoe, disasters Billy the quarterback NOT asking her to the prom, and 9/11/01 having a really bad-hair day (the chlorine in the pool turned her hair green) were bad, but to countries/developing nations other, “normal” ppl that are forced to deal with this on a daily basis as a typical part of life, are we is she seen as pussies silly for reacting so strongly?

Assuming she was back in 9/11 at the pool, how would she be seen if we she just said “It happens. Well, well I did need a new trade center to find a different salon anyways.” and I can become a brunette for awhile?

It’s called RELATIVITY….what one does expect to be “normal”, status quo, typical for their life. Having a negative event and responding to it would be pretty much NORMAL. The world crowd ALREADY sees America Mary Sue as being overly spoiled by her good fortune to have build up live in a social order supported by a liberal form of government overly indulging parents that tries to share wealth fairly among ALL ppl spoils the shit out of her,,,,a land, basically stolen from its “owners” lifestyle granted by unfair-wage economics, that is rich in resources material possessions beyond wildest dreams.

Yeah, of course America is seen to be quite “spoiled” and over-reactive when compared to strongly negative events, strident daily life, and oppressive govt of other nations. We’re seen to be hugely arrogant & hypocritical because we “fail to see” this reality when we ignorantly tell the world to “be like us” and that (jake-o here) we don’t wanna hear any of your shit…esp. any criticism of us in any form.

Yeah, we pretty much ARE viewed by a lot of the world as the arrogant, ignorant, self-indulged Ugly American.

 
Flag Post

I think it’s just modern media (rather than only American media). We are all so used to exciting TV, films and games that the news is boring unless it gets hyped up to a ridiculous level.

Personally I find it a sad state of affairs when real news isn’t worthy of our attention unless it can compete with the rest of modern media, but I am someone who watched George Osborne delivering the budget live rather than waiting for the cliff’s notes versions, but that is because I personally like to form my own opinions, it would seem that now alot of people don’t have the time to form their own thoughts so the media has to deliver the hysterical view for people to parrot rather than just the facts.

/rant

 
Flag Post

I had to google who George Osborne is, a kinda sad state of affairs when he is apparently Chancellor of the Exchequer for the country I’m living in, but nevermind.

You might find your milage varies according to the media you subscribe to, dd. If you go for less mainstream sources you’re going to get less hyperbole. Plus you get to edit out the bits you have absolutely no interest in – such as politics, budgets, and the like.

 
Flag Post

I would like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

 
Flag Post

I’m well aware that in USA, I’m going to hear more about 20 children being killed, but why is the loss of 3 American soldiers so much more significant than a US officer killing 20 forigners or hundreds of middle easterners being killed to the point where it seems like a city of forigners is not as important as a case of (American) Police Brutality?

 
Flag Post

Any country will react the same way like we did. The world has changed a lot over the years.

 
Flag Post

If we didn’t have a socialist apologist government.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by XxsamuroxX:

If we didn’t have a socialist apologist government.

… Wat?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by DrOctaganapus2:

we didn’t overreact to disasters. Yes, school shootings, disasters and 9/11/01 were bad, but to countries/developing nations that are forced to deal with this on a daily basis, are we seen as pussies for reacting so strongly? Assuming we were back in 9/11, how would we be seen as if we just said “It happens. Well, we did need a new trade center anyways.”?

interesting proposition. that would probably imply that they don’t consider each American casualty to be equivalent of 10000 overseas casualties. and it would make them seem composed and resilient. it would probably mean they’d be a lot more respected by some less fortunate countries.

but yes, every country would respond in shock to such an event. …i wonder though, there may be differences. i’m afraid i do believe that many other countries would look internally to what it’s doing wrong to invoke/allow such an event to happen. they’d have investigations for corruption (not just inside job conspiracies, but corruption can also mean things like misspending security money that’s meant to prevent such things), and stuff like that.

also poor countries of course have less broadcasting options.

 
Flag Post

What the OP is saying is valid. Compare how the US reacted to terrorism to how Norweigians reacted.

 
Flag Post

Personally, I don’t think that the problem is that the U.S. responds to their disasters so strongly. With American society as it is, that is only to be expected. No, I think that part of the problem is that the U.S. responds to other country’s crisis situations so strongly. For example, when Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana and the surrounding area, the U.S. responded with about 128 billion dollars to support the rebuilding of the area and while not nearly as much money was raised for Haiti after the earthquake Haiti ended up with more money than it had before the earthquake we raised enough money to equal about 80% of their GDP. and why was there such resounding support for Haiti? only because people felt obligated. politically Haiti had (and still has) absolutely no affect on the U.S. period. not politically, not economically, not militarily, not nothing. A lot of hate is directed towards the United States because they feel the need to big-brother everyone… now in the case of Haiti the help was needed but in some other cases we end up spending billions of dollars that we already don’t have, and all we end up doing is making more enemies. I mean it’s not exactly like we have a lot of money to throw around what with our almost 16 and a half trillion dollars in debt, yet, we do it anyway… just sayin’

“Welcome to America, the place where we spend more money before 3 am than most countries spend in an entire year.”

 
Flag Post

Some foreign assholes would say we don’t care about our people, some assholes would say we care to much.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JohnRulz:

What the OP is saying is valid. Compare how the US reacted to terrorism to how Norweigians reacted.

There are some major differences between Sept 11 and Oslo, so much so that the difference in reaction between the two is completely valid. How about looking at the reaction between Brevik and Major Hasan. Those are closer to being comparable, and the reaction was comparable. Neither public reaction could be considered more outstanding.

 
Flag Post

It may not be 9/11, but is is still the largest terror attack in Norway’s history, and much greater than Fort Hood. And the reactions were not similar. With Fort Hood, the government’s response was basically “Let’s not be racist about this”, and then forgetting about it.
Norway might not have done anything, but it certainly didn’t forget about it after a month. Norway also doesn’t have the problems the military has—Brevik was an isolated case. I cannot say the same for the US military. There are still mentally ill soldiers that are not getting the treatment they need, as evidenced by the high suicide rate. Mental illness in general is a problem in America, as evidenced by all the mass shootings, but nothing has been done to fix it. Sandy Hook might be a better comparison than Fort Hood. I don’t believe Norway ever seriously considered armed guards at summer camps, but that is considered a legitimate option in the US. That is where your difference is.

 
Flag Post

JohnRulz, I understand your point. I agree about the fact that mentally ill soldiers in USA are probably not getting enough support for their illness. However, I don’t agree that mental illness in general is a problem in America (your sentence suggests you think only America has this problem). Mental illness is a general trouble that affects lots of people in industrialized countries, not only America, mostly due to stress. Is is well-known, but is it still a taboo.

From what i’ve read, you don’t understand why would someone think that the best way to resolve mass shootings is to give to even more people the right to use guns (armed guards as you wrote). You must understand that the situation in America and in Norway is not the same. In America, you are allowed to buy guns freely. In Norway, your gun is registered to your name in the police database and you can’t have a gun if you have a record, or if the police thinks you can be a threat to the society. This alone reduces greatly the potential of having a mass shooting in Norway. For the Americans that see guns as self-defense weapons and not as murdering tools, they will obviously see armed guards as a response to mass shootings, and they are right. I’m pretty sure if you put armed guards at every school, mass shootings in schools will reduce. It might not be the best solution (not even close IMO), but it is still a solution. You don’t think the way Americans think, and it it normal. Your background defines you, and what may seem obvious for you may not seem that obvious for the others. Your solution might be to treat people with mental illnesses to avoid mass shootings, but it is unrealistic to think under short and medium term that this is a viable solution. What Americans need is a solution that will have an impact right now.

To resolve this problem, I see 2 reasonable options (there are more, but I don’t know them or I don’t think they are a good way to fix the problem).
1- Let the police build a weapon database (expensive, but firearms are at least a bit more controlled)
2- Machine guns, SMGs and any other weapon other than a revolver should be illegal to have in USA, or at least make illegal the bullets for those kind of weapons (seriously, why having an automatic rifle with bullets if it’s only for “a collection”). There is obviously no need for a 30 bullets magazine rifle if none are allowed…

I apologize for any mistakes in my text, please forgive me, i’m not a native english speaker. I also apologize to the OP, as it may not be an anwser to his question. Yeah I know, I apologize a lot, it’s normal, I’m Canadian (stereotypes FTW!).

 
Flag Post

JohnRulz, I understand your point. I agree about the fact that mentally ill soldiers in USA are probably not getting enough support for their illness. However, I don’t agree that mental illness in general is a problem in America (your sentence suggests you think only America has this problem). Mental illness is a general trouble that affects lots of people in industrialized countries, not only America, mostly due to stress. Is is well-known, but is it still a taboo.

I understand that mental illness is a widespread problem. However, what is (fairly) unique in america is mentally ill people going on shooting sprees. No other comparable country has nearly the number of mass shootings the US has. There is clearly something seriously wrong here.

From what i’ve read, you don’t understand why would someone think that the best way to resolve mass shootings is to give to even more people the right to use guns (armed guards as you wrote). You must understand that the situation in America and in Norway is not the same. In America, you are allowed to buy guns freely. In Norway, your gun is registered to your name in the police database and you can’t have a gun if you have a record, or if the police thinks you can be a threat to the society. This alone reduces greatly the potential of having a mass shooting in Norway. For the Americans that see guns as self-defense weapons and not as murdering tools, they will obviously see armed guards as a response to mass shootings,

I understand why someone would think that, but it is simply not an acceptable way to think. The TSA doesn’t try to stop terrorism by giving everyone on the plane a gun. Armed guards are expensive, and can only do damage control (provided they aren’t targeted first). There cannot be an armed guard in every classroom. School shootings would not be prevented, they just (might) result in fewer deaths.

You don’t think the way Americans think, and it it normal. Your background defines you, and what may seem obvious for you may not seem that obvious for the others. Your solution might be to treat people with mental illnesses to avoid mass shootings, but it is unrealistic to think under short and medium term that this is a viable solution. What Americans need is a solution that will have an impact right now.

Treating mental illness isn’t my only solution (see my posts in the gun control thread). I just feel like the mental illness aspects are overlooked. Instead, the media has fun blaming video games, movies, and godlessness. In fact, more blame falls on the shoulders of the media itself than any of those things. There is a reason we know the killers’ names, but never the victims’. But you won’t see the media say that, for some strange reason. Also, I am american.