The "ignorant American" - a fair prejudice?

Well I've been out of this here thread only throwing a bit of "ingnorant americanism" when I do find some. I'm no world history buff so I look for the current trend a la stupidity of Americans. Here's a sample.

This is a good example of dumbass trash biggoted asshole americanism! sorry to be part of it!. what a shame.



American dumb ass

Godless.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It dawned on me. This whole thread was completely unessecery. If you are in the U.S. and think that we are not a nation of ignorant assholes, take a trip down to your local Wally World (that's Wal-Mart for those not in the know.) And I'm sure you will find more than enough examples of the ignorant American and plenty to remind you that birth control is a good idea. In any case, you won't find people reading Kant in the book aisle. Even the employees aren't too bright (or at least quite cowardly) - no one seems to want to unionize, even though it is one of the largest employers in the U.S.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A union at wall mart? that would be the day. There's no homogeny anywere in America, the unions are full of mafia bosses, running the show, and stealing your money. Who the hell wants that?, I'm not the Union type of guy, no thank you. Last time I was in a union, all it did me is got me a hole in my poket, no real benefit, non-whatsoever. This time I joined the freaking culinary union to no avail, they only refer me to jobs, but they refer hundreds of others to the same fucking job, what a waste of money!. finally I resorted to finding a job on my own, I still want to work for a casino, preferably non-union, but lately here in Vegas this is getting harder to do!.

Godless.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

strong unions are one of the reasons teachers in the north east, especially PA, get paid better than anywhere else in the country. unions are awesome when they arent abused

 

Well, in Europe we have more civilized unions. They take care of the interests of the employees.

 

See Healthcare in European social welfare states. You don't have to invent anything new. Just adopt something similar.

 

I think Americans are at a slight disadvantage at the knowledge game (btw, stupidity and ignorance are different things and should not be interchanged). For example, most people want to learn about America, as it is the most powerful nation on Earth. As a Canadian, I couldn't care less about Louis Riel or Lester B. Pearson or the CPR railway. I'd rather read about the Battle of Trenton, or Stonewall Jackson, or the Marshall Plan. I'm sorry, but that's just the way I feel. And if I do learn about American history, then I become "worldly" and "educated", because I know about a foreign country. However, if an American kid does the same thing, he's only learning what he's supposed to know anyway. And I doubt he'd reciprocate the favour and delve into Canadian history.

 

Interestingly, we hardly learn anything about internal american history. Because it is mostly irrelevant.


Jeez...we are just as bad.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

(Endless nameless?)

One Raven

Admittedly, it depends on how one applies the generalization. For instance, I would assert that in the modern period, that arrogance is cyclically entwined. Perhaps we can blame Calvinism for the initial injection, but that American arrogance seems legitimized, or at least affirmed, by the necessary accommodation of the consumer by the marketplace. To draw such affirmation or legitimization from the marketplace responding to its perception of demand is, of course, wrongheaded, but such is the result of working with the capsule summaries of bullet-lists intended to compress real data into nuggets.

Part of the American people's political emboldenment comes from the muddling of the line between news and opinion, or in some cases outright entertainment. A 2003 study suggested FOX News viewers bore greater misperceptions about the war in Iraq. Interestingly, a clarification at the Seattle Times website notes that, "the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy (PIPA), which conducted the survey, later issued a clarification that the correlation between viewing Fox News and holding misperceptions does not prove that Fox News' presentation caused the misperceptions." (Emphasis added.)

So let's think about FOX's potential role in misperceptions: FOX reports, and according to their editorial foci, certain issues seem presented in a conservative manner. In addition to cable-TV news nuggets on FOX, viewers are also offered analysis by such luminaries as Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. Ann Coulter is a regular guest on these shows, lending her "analytical" skills to the mix. The lines between news and entertainment, analysis and shilling punditry, between necessity and entertainment, are already skewed. So people get the FOX version, but what FOX isn't responsible for--except perhaps the notion that conservatives exploit ignorance and misperception--is whether or not those FOX viewers undertake any further examination of the issues in question. It is the choice of any member of the audience to look further into a story, or to ignore sources that don't meet the approval of one's standing political assertion.

Think for a minute of business journals. There are many in diverse industries, and they often tend to read with a conservative voice not necessarily because the editors or writers themselves are conservative; coincidence does not imply cause. However, those journals often deal with the business of business, and their column space is thus afforded. The human aspect of news may seem to take a backseat, sometimes, but that's not an industry journal's primary mission. Many Americans don't have or value even the minimal critical reading skills necessary to tell the difference between conservative politics and the coincidence of, say, an insurance-industry journal fretting about how much the storms in California are going to hack off various companies' bottom-line.

We get a hint of the American work ethic from a May, 2004 press release from the American Sociological Association regarding labor demands and the condition of the family:

(It should be noted that I have not yet finished reading Presser's article mentioned in the press release.)

The ASA perceives a certain unfriendliness toward the family unit in work schedule demands, and also suggests potential health effects. In other words, we face the possibility that economic demands leave parents without time to take care of certain necessities for either their children or themselves.

And right there we can leave Calvinism aside, regardless of how satisfying an indictment of such a cracked ethic might be. We see the beginnings of compressed processes--parental guidance is compressed in order to meet economic demand. The bullet-list of life's virtues and principles, so to speak. Nobody can bestow the whole of their knowledge unto their children, else the monologue would never cease.

Sometimes parents say, "Because we say so," because the child is legitimately unprepared to understand the underlying complexities of life. That my daughter would, in years to come, have a strong assertion that, at 14, that she has the right to have sex with whomever she wants, doesn't mean I won't try to stop her. And that doesn't mean I won't stand on my authority as a parent. Could she sit through the patient recital of the underlying philosophy of social interrelationships and virtues? Would she? If you don't mind, I'd rather not dwell on it.

There comes a point where the bullet list merely reads, "Because I say so."

It's not inherent human corruption. It's resource allocation. Such a simple proposal, of course, should not suggest the dynamic it describes is not intricate or subtle. One can give the clinical description of a brain generating an electrical impulse in response to some stimulus, which impulse travels through the diverse media of the body's nervous system in order to incite certain muscles to flex a certain amount for a certain period with the result that the legs extend and propel .... Or we could just look at the frog and say, "It's jumping." The simple answer--What is happening?--that, "The frog is jumping," should not disparage biologists or neurologists in any way. Most people do not wish to dedicate such resources to what they perceive a simple question. The simple answer will suffice, as the issue of what is happening happens, in this instance, to be relatively unimportant.

If one constantly judges the underfunded--so to speak--needs, a certain tolerance will develop. This is true in any moral assertion, as morals change much like fashions. People fear the slippery slope, and are conscious of it all around them in the contemporary period in part because they live on it, and they constantly see people tumbling down and cracking their crowns.

And this is something like parenthood. True, there was a time when liberals in Oregon suggested, and not entirely politely, that conservatives ought to worry about their own families, first, before sticking their noses into other peoples. But when it comes to something like the latest news nuggets ... they don't have time to take care of their kids the way they want. They don't have time to take care of themselves the way they ought to. It seems simple enough to tell them to make the choice, but, you know, I'm not generally regarded as entirely sane, so I tend to allow people the liberty to face their demons when they feel up to the challenge.

• • •​

I feel guilty because I'm not able to push through on four hours' sleep anymore, but then again I was no better at this parenting thing--even without a separate workplace--when I could. I was kicking myself this afternoon because, no matter how much I might wish to point to my partner and say, "Um, a little help here, please?" on the simple issue of resetting my daughter's sleep cycle to something a little more healthy, well, it's my kid, so I ought to be able to make it on four hours sleep or no sleep, if necessary. Should I feel guilty, then, if I'm so zombified that I can't carry through a normal schedule in order to help reset her sleep cycle? (Note: Cheerios are a better evening snack for a toddler than, say, Golden Grahams. Whoops.) At some point parents just shake it off and carry forward, or else they'll need serious and debilitating medication. Prozac, for instance, can only do so much for judgment, which is an unfortunate little as it's explained to me. Of course, I'm no more anxious about returning to the workplace this year than my partner is about returning to reasonable sobriety. I can't imagine what normal working parents go through. It always looked tough, but even with all of the quiet advantages we've been given as parents, I never imagined parenthood would be like this. It's not so much hard in my role as it is insane. It's just a matter of attuning my insanity to the ambient craziness, but that still feels like a compromise, like something short of normalcy. In the end, every scrap of information I teach my daughter will be inadequately expressed. That's as much an acknowledgment of reality as it is a challenge to transcend, but that's because I have a certain amount of time to think that others aren't necessarily privy to. That the novel isn't written despite my thousands--even millions--of words here at Sciforums is an equal reflection of resource allocation. If I could realistically carve out the time I need for the novel, I would try. In the meantime, it's enough to keep in motion, and even if these thoughts aren't much, they're more than I would have should I surrender to the Sisyphan absurdity.

There is a proverb, Chinese, I believe, that says, "If you do not know what to do next, do nothing." This is good advice when angry, but there comes a point in mundane affairs at which it represents an unacceptable condition.

Though many a voter--even a majority--would agree with me that the evolution of educational standards represents a decline in the real value of what our educational system produces, the condition is only addressed in tiny bites. Despite our tremendous leaps and bounds in general and specific knowledge, we're allocating more of our personal resources to specialization. "Well-rounded" is redefined out of existence, and the cycle of seemingly-victimizing necessity--compression and subsequent decay of signal--plays out again.

There's this much to account for even before we get into the issue of how well one is equipped to receive information; that presents a whole new set of problems.

• • •​

In the end, the critical resource to be allocated and utilized is time. Americans are long-familiar with the phrase, "Time is money". Einstein even proved it, I think, according to a Far Side cartoon or some such. He might as well have proven it for real, for all Americans seem to care.

• • •​

A political observation: Moralists in the U.S. have long been outraged at the "decay of the family". Strangely, central heating is one of the strongest blows against family unity. Yet unmarried cohabitation won acceptance in part because of the economic necessity, much to the dismay of some Christian moralists. Disney even faced boycott in the 1990s in response to offering benefits to unmarried domestic partners, which, of course, raised the issue of same-sex partners, and the moralists ended up feeling justified.

Yet it is economy again that is taxing the family, and these policies derived from American conservative political philosophy. After all, while Democrats are, in retrospect, happy enough with the Clinton economy, conservatives don't like to miss the opportunity to remind us that the Clinton economy was just a continuation of the Reagan economy.

• • •​

As I noted previously, I would assert that, "Between priorities of focus and an obsession with efficiency (or perhaps with the passing of time itself), a great deal about 'What's wrong with Americans?' can be explained."

Perhaps a melodramatic comparison: The atheist asserts now and then that being free of religious dogma and superstition allows a person to think more clearly and rationally about the issues facing that individual. A question of, "Why?" seems almost intentionally silly. Resource allocation and utilization, a reduction of static in the signal ... any number of thematic metaphors works here. Faced with a circumstance and challenged to respond, it seems intuitive enough to presume that someone working with relevant facts will respond to a more accurate perception of the situation than one who casts it according to a psychological identity fantasy. It's simple enough to say that, when faced with a choice, the atheist is asserted in this case to have fewer distractions in the form of dogma and superstition; thus, more direct address can be given the issue.

Likewise, the overworked parent sees a reduction of resources utilized toward children and health. First in the extra hours spent at work, and then in the reduced allocations toward recovery from mundane exhaustion. Problem-solving and conflict resolution are best undertaken when wide awake. Yes, it's good to sleep on it, but part of the problem, so to speak, is that there's no time to do anything about it in the morning.

• • •​

Nor can I encourage the pretense that resource-allocation issues are exclusive to working parents. My partner worked too hard before we had a child, as well. My mother works too hard, and the whole family has tried for years to get her to see that putting eighty hours a week into a job for which she's paid for just under half that is problematic. A friend of mine, a musician, worked so many hours keeping a roof over his head that he lost his band. Not that they resented him, or anything. They were all too busy. Now he's too busy as a student, but he's where he wants to be, doing what he wants to do, so it's easier to work himself too hard. This does not stop him from having opinions, and they are no better-informed for the quantitatively-reduced foundation. Such a statement does not, however, reflect the reduction of geographic and historical unawareness that comes to Americans living in Europe for varying periods.

Me? The last jobs I had were what the ASA's framing of the discussion would call "regular" schedules. I put in several years with "regular" schedules, although my longest tenure with any of those employers was only about three years. Living in that world drives me crazy. Absolutely freaking bonkers. Not because it's a regular schedule, though, but because of other resource-allocation issues that many people lament in their own workplaces, so I can spare us the detail. I do remember, in younger years, my parents asking why I didn't get a better job when I didn't make enough money at the one I had. I recall asking, in reflection of one of my work schedules, when I should pencil in some sleep. And at that time, I only needed four hours. Lived that way for years. But you know, I was told to stop making excuses.

In the years since, in failing to grow up, most of my conflicts have centered around this internal resource allocation, and since so many people around me tell me to chill out, that my problem's not unique, it seemed a natural enough idea to examine the world around me, and I'm neither surprised that it's so, or that it should seem so at all. This is one particular self-affirmation I'm not nearly as cynical about.

My primary resource allocation error? Protecting a specific "artistic necessity" while doing nothing to secure it. Kind of like going into battle without any fortifications or supply logistics.

And what I'm getting after is that it seems culturally-thematic. Americans expect a great deal in the world, and some of that is reflected in the arrogance itself, while the arrogance reflects its tributary themes. The underlying concept is rather quite human; the particular nature of its enactment is curiously unique.

• • •​

The "ignorant American" image simply comes from living by the bullet-list and TV listings capsule. Americans might seem savvy as they deftly leap from buoy to buoy, but nothing about that apparent grace should suggest they have a clue what's under the water. Some do, some don't. Flip a coin.

The "arrogant American", of course, is what highlights that ignorance and makes it noteworthy. Americans are, like all stupid humans, stupid. But a stupid human picking on another stupid human for being stupid while ignoring his own stupidity in order to presume moral license makes that aggressive stupid human's stupidity stand out.

• • •​

I just see it as culturally thematic. It comes up too often for me to write off. The fire marshall's report is well and fine, but for most people, to say the problem with the house is that it's on fire is a reasonable assessment, and I intend the simple assertion that resource allocation issues and their results are, in fact, what are burning the roof to go no farther. Whether or not we let the motherf@cker burn is purely a question of priorities: How important is it to us as individuals in a cooperative society to change this condition or perception we seem to resent?

Look at me, for instance: I have a tendency against certain actions resulting from my unwillingness to bow to this perception of thematic inaccuracy. I'm so busy questing after some notion of truth I rarely act on what I discover until I absolutely must. To that end, I haven't figured out how important is the difference between something falling over, my failure to attempt to catch what is too heavy for me to affect, and actually going forth and knocking it down.

Where does the detail come in on the list? Where does a nation that hasn't time for its children or itself rank the necessity of understanding geography or history or current events, or even the human condition itself? Some things just don't translate well in the compressed form, and that's the problem. In order to avoid a bottleneck, we're stripping out some of the information. The Big Picture, then, is incomplete. And when those gaps coincide with important issues, or are contrasted against a background of the arrogance of privilege, they stand out: hence, the stereotype of the ignorant American. Culturally, we derive many firm opinions from spurious or incomplete factual assertions. Internally, we fight bitterly over some of these opinions, creating something of a sideshow. And while "Freedom Fries" may be a product of our arrogance, I tend to push things like "Schwarzkopf to Schwarzkopf" in the vain hope that the history of that cycle will strike my American neighbors significantly. It's great for preaching to the converted, but it seems a stubborn denial of ignorance that I can't work around when pitching the notion to conservatives.

• • •​

Somebody mentioned Loewen's, Lies My Teacher Told Me. My father, who's undergone a personal transformation over the last decade, a former capitalist and strident anti-Communist, has taken a much more communitarian view of the world. We were walking in Seattle, I think to the aerospace museum, and talking about something when I mentioned an issue that arises in the early chapters of Loewen's book. Most Americans who remember the Cold War don't know that the U.S. actually invaded Russia, had troops fighting inside the country. The notion seemed to affect my father more severely than I would have expected, but perhaps it's because part of his "American jingoistic arrogance" in earlier years perched smugly on the notion that "they started it". He mentioned that he felt badly that he didn't know that, but I didn't pursue it. The days for skewering his conscience are long gone. But the tremor was obvious.

So, someday he might go read the history and come back to the conclusion, "Hey, they did start it." But understanding what I do about the transformation he's undergone, I confidently suspect that he did not escape memory and doubt; yet another set of decisions from history for him to question.

It's a small thing, but nobody knows how it would have affected his decisions. Neither does he, and while it might be interesting to understand those reflections, I'm not about to press him. So, unfortunately, that end of the tale remains open.

But yes, small gaps can have enormous implications, and among those we have cultivated a stereotype much of the world holds as "ignorant" and "arrogant".

Or so says me. See how simple it is?

Er ....
_____________________

Notes:

McFadden, Kay. "Study shows TV news viewers have misperceptions about Iraq war". SeattleTimes.com, October 6, 2003. See http://archives.seattletimes.nwsour...i/web/vortex/display?slug=kay06&date=20031006

American Sociological Association. "24/7 Economy's Work Schedules Are Family Unfriendly and Suggest Needed Policy Changes". May 25, 2004. See http://www.asanet.org/media/work_hours.html ​

See Also -

Presser, Harriet B. "The Economy That Never Sleeps". Contexts, v.3, n.2, Spring, 2004. See http://www.contextsmagazine.org/content_sample_v3-2.php ​

 

And now how do we make it so the politicians do exactly that? Remember, it's not the American people that get to make the rules nor do we get to even vote on most of them. We just get to sit back and twiddle our thumbs in hopes that the people in charge actually come up with a good idea, and have those people in charge vote and pass it, otherwise time just goes by as we continue to suffer with our current ways. I'm all for adopting many of your ways, but they aren't.

And damn, Tiassa, here I thought *I* made long posts. Nice summary (if it can be called that

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) of the daily life of the average American.

- N

 

Damn, Tiassa, what a thoughtless waste of tripe you posted. It's full of your dumb liberal bias. It's almost making me want to throw-up. Here, have a history lesson.

The Russians did "Start it". First, Stalin REFUSED to accept UN control of the Nuclear Bomb, he wanted one of his own.

Stalin REFUSED to give-up territory he did NOT agree to in the confrences (read the book "The Conquerors")

The Soviet Union in general had always provided for the "Communist Internationale" (remember the "Anti-CommIntern" pact between Nazis and Japan, that's what it was against.)

The Communist Internationale invaded other nations, incited rebellions, and attempted to establish Communism there.

Notable successes? Cuba//North Korea//Afghanistan//Vietnam and Spain. All of which had violent rebellions thanks to infiltration by the Communist Internationale.

That same orginzation invaded the US, and spread propoganda across College Campuses during the Vietnam war. They worked in many different names within the US, but were actively supported by the Soviet Union.

As for your comments on Atheism, if that philosophy were so good, why is it all the greatest events of man were Religious?

The Pyramids.

The Temples of the Ancient World.

The Rennaissance.

Hell, even the Apollo Missions.

Apollo 8 read Genesis.

Apollo 11, the first thing done after stay//no stay was checked, was to have a Communion on the Moon.

It isn't Athiests doing great things, the Russians were not fully Athiest, most of their noteable people were secretively religious. And even so, their system horribly failed.

Man needs religion, whatever it is.

Sir Robert Bacon, "A little philosophy inclineth a man to Atheism, more philosophy inclineth a man to Religion."

I believe him because I went through that exact phase.

As for your ideas of "resource allocation", retarded. There are two methods, neither are good. One is you go and steal the resources for yourself, the other is the Government distributes them to you.

In the latter, the Government becomes the new owners and does not care about you one bit.

I will conclude here, in spite of saying you are a complete retard, in further saying that your problems with money is because you work too hard. You work and don't realize that investing is how you make money, you think you can't save and invest because you are stupid.

And that's about all there is worth saying.

It's a shame you wasted so much damn bandwidth.

 

("I'll be in the gazebo, since you're already on the cross")

FreeMason

Given the atrocious number of mechanical failures I've just corrected in my writing, as well as the quietly unsettling confidence that I haven't found them all, I might share your nausea. Such sympathy would be misplaced, though: your complaints don't seem to involve those problems in any significant manner.

As to history lessons--

--you seem to have overlooked a couple of important points:

(1) I left the conclusion of what history says open: "So, someday he might go read the history and come back to the conclusion, 'Hey, they did start it.'"

(2) You're citing events that come after the United States deployed troops to tamper with the Revolution. From August, 1918 through April 1, 1920, American regulars under General William S. Graves operated inside Russia.​

In the tale of my father, he might well come back to his original conviction that yes, the Russians started it. But at the time, it seemed unsettling to him that something so obvious as invading Russia had escaped his knowledge and consideration.

When knowledge replaces superstition, the superstitious are often the last to understand. Humanity continues to evolve, to grow up. It took until Denis Diderot for the continuous historical progression you cite to reach the point of declaring that, "Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths."

I agree. Consider the "Church of Baseball", or the implications of "alien-seed theory".

I've been through it, too.

However, "religion" generally addresses what is unknown and often unanswerable. The problem we find in the prior considerations of atheism and religion comes when the superstitious assert their superstitions as facts.

Perversely, the Inquisitions fulfilled a fearful and superstitious worldview according to Matthew 25. It's kind of chilling in that context.

What resources have you devoted to understanding the notion of social contract?

Or should I cite a video game? "When you base a government on the lowest qualities of people, those qualities are reflected in their leaders." (Deus Ex)

Perhaps something a little more academic? How about Lysander Spooner? "(I)t is impossible that a government should have any rights, except such as the individuals composing it had previously had, as individuals. They could not delegate to a government any rights which they did not themselves possess. They could not contribute to the government any rights, except such as they themselves possessed as individuals." ("Vices")

That many Americans do not understand the philosophical undercurrents and social contract leading to the American Constitutional assertion of government authority is, in fact, a sad symptom of the compression of information. The social contract is more complex an assertion than the mere "right to keep and bear arms". For its complexity, it gets put to the background, and thus seems unimportant. Most Americans have heard the term in their lives, but few interpret the politics and doings of Americans according to the actual nature of the Constitution's asserted authority. They might get around to it in college, and they sure as hell don't like to remember their social studies.

Your consideration of the options seems unnaturally narrow.
____________________

Notes:

Spooner, Lysander. "Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication Of Moral Liberty". 1875. See http://lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm ​

 

QUOTE Neildo

> Well, if you have any ideas about what we should do, I'm all ears. You'll also become filthy rich if you find out the magic way of making this all happen, economically and morally.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It doesnt seem too hard in principle.

Firstly America would never adopt our socialist healthcare system, it is contrary to the very principles daer to nearly every American;s heart.

What is a workable solution? Instead of having only one organisation controlling and regulating medical practice, have 2, 3, or 4. America badly needs a more sensible approach to medicine than its current unafordably priced system, designed to deliberately extort as much money as it can. If there is demand for another system, and it is made legal, it will occur.

Also US needs to sort its laws out on medical practice. Currently in US you knowingly take a risk at every medical happening, yet you can sue drs for a fortune when it doesnt work out. It wasnt their fault...

Here in UK you can only sue for malpractice or negligence: the law recognises that we take risks with every treatment, and that if it doesnt work out the dr doesnt somehow owe us for it.

These 2 things would see a substantial reduction in med costs in the US.

Another thing needed is to allow trained midwives to attend births in place of doctors, this is one of the key reasons our infant death rate is much lower in the UK. In the US many are still giving birth without adequate medical assistance.


Now how on earth do I make a fortune outta that?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

> It's still available to everyone but at the cost of around $450 a month which is pretty ridiculous when you add in other monthly payments such as rent, utilities, food, car insurance, gas, and all that crap, heh.

Very. Last time I looked at private med insurance here it was something like 200-300 GBP a year, around 250-350USD. Your script costs are mind boggling: I dont think I've ever paid over a tenner for a prescribed drug, and thats paying full price, no subsidy. I should add thats pharmacy stuff, its a bit different if youre in hospital.


> That's one of the reasons why I always prepare for the worst because if anything happens, there's not gonna be anyone to help me so I gotta be sure I can do most things myself. Kinda funny how I need to worry about those kind of things in a country supposedly so great, eh? It's only great for the rich and well, they're the minority.

exactly, the system is not working for millions of americans. Your wellbeing is being traded in for profit maximisation, at any cost, lives included.

You once lived in a democratic republic, nowadays it seems you live in a corporationocracy, where in some cases the corps go as far as extortion, and legitimate democratic capitalist competition is illegal. And many of you pay with it with your lives.

The weird thing is, hardly anyone's noticed. Your fellows still think its the greatest system going! heh.


Lava

 

I hear ya - was in a union down there and yes they are quite corrupt. But I'm pretty sure Vegas is the only place where this is a huge problem. I've worked with some people up north in Reno who have been forming unions, and it actually seems like their intentions are in the right spot.

 

Could someone please give some actual supporting evidence that other nations populations are so much more intellectually advanced and well informed, on average, than the US? I already know the problems we face here. By the way, I love the title of this thread - "... a fair prejudice". What intellectual giant came up with that?

 

Check out relative national IQs, US doesnt do so well at 96 average.

Lava

 

Although I despise IQ's as nothing more then an eugenic machination to purposely make non-whites look stupid, if you want to use that then the US is behind many other nations:

Hong Kong 107
Korea, South 106
Japan 105
Taiwan 104
Singapore 104
Austria 102
Germany 102
Italy 102
Netherlands 102
Sweden 101
Switzerland 101
Belgium 100
China 100
New Zealand 100
U. Kingdom 100
Hungary 99
Poland 99
Australia 98
Denmark 98
France 98
Norway 98
United States 98

 

Yeah, damn all those insane amounts of minorities in our country for lowering our average IQ.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- N

 

Its true, the "white" IQ in the US is around 100...Black something like 85?

 

Hmm. Undecided, how did you happen to omit Canada's 97 average from your list? I'm sure it wasn't intentional.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm