What do you dislike about Americans in general?

[Snorri1234]

The father of all reality shows was, I believe, "The Real World" which was shown on MTV in the 90s.

And that was AMERICAN!

Thanks for taking the blame.

[natty dread]

Thanks for taking the blame.

What? I'm not american.

[pimpdave]

The father of all reality shows was, I believe, "The Real World" which was shown on MTV in the 90s.

And that was AMERICAN!

As the format most exploited today, I'd say you're probably right (is there any definitive source on this?), but there are some reality shows that provide decent mindless escapes. I still say Cheaters was the best (i.e. most horrifying display of human nature) or shows like Scare Tactics. Which, if we consider reality TV, then surely the grandparent of those shows is Candid Camera. Is programming like that really so bad?

I can't stand stuff like Survivor or Big Brother. Or even worse, the next top model, or super chef, or who will make the band or be the next comedian everyone will have forgotten about a year later. I'm still shocked by how successful American Idol is.

I have to admit that I do indulge, from time to time, in Cops and Scare Tactics. I can't explain Cops, but you have to admire the lengths taken for the pranks in Scare Tactics.

Also, shows like Myth Busters (i.e. Nerdtainment). I know that's not what one thinks of when one says "reality TV", but I think you all know where I'm going with this.

[john9blue]

If you look hard enough and know enough about how people act, it becomes obvious that many "reality" shows are scripted and not really indicative of reality at all. Then you have game shows like 5th Grader which are scripted, and shows like Deal Or No Deal which take a game of 100% luck and make it entertainment, making it essentially a mini-drama.

I watch very little TV. What I do watch is usually cartoons, because ironically they often have actual meaning and do not pretend to be real.

[Woodruff]

Remember, the entire reason behind Jefferson's plan for the Virginia board of education was to produce a populace capable of the critical thinking necessary to maintain a democratic republic. The way things are going now, I think we're inevitably headed for Idiocracy. It might even already be here.

Sadly, I agree with you.

[Queen_Herpes]

Remember, the entire reason behind Jefferson's plan for the Virginia board of education was to produce a populace capable of the critical thinking necessary to maintain a democratic republic. The way things are going now, I think we're inevitably headed for Idiocracy. It might even already be here.

Historical Fail. Jefferson supported the electoral college which was established to put the right person in power in the event that the idiots failed to make the right choice.

[notyou2]

I think people tend to hate those who have done better than themselves...this relates to countries.

Every world power has been hated at the time when they were in power. It wouldnt matter if we did everything right the USA would still be hated.

Rome was hated
Britain was hated
The USA is hated...kinda comes with the title WORLD SUPERPOWER.

The thing people don't understand is that the USA doesn't give @@@@ what the world thinks of it we can do what we want because were the biggest and the best...Its like our "privelege" shall we say for carving out the greatest nation on the planet in a mere 200 years...Oh btw if were really hated that bad then why do people want to come here...no one except terrorist extremists actually hates the usa or the people that live here because we come from every nation on the planet...people hate the desicions that a SUPERPOWER has to make in order to do what we think is best for the big picture...if you want a say in what happens in this world..be my guest go carve a superpower country out of the wilderness and you can have your say

Ok, I'll hold my tongue on your history and other things, but I'll give ya this:

The United States wasn't too hated 50 years ago. Maybe even 30 years ago, but as you can see--especially after the fall of the SU (Soviet Union)--we've become more involved and more entangled in other country's internal affairs, and it's been pissing off the world. We can already dominate anyone who tries to threaten us, but instead we've chosen to take it one step further and be the world police, the bully, or the modern day imperialist. That's why, in my humble opinion, many people dislike America. This is what causes the hate, the anti-American sentiment, and what fuels most terrorism directed towards us. We're suppose to be this country of freedom, liberty, and what have you, but people watch what we do, and they remember; whereas, Americans in general have the attention span of gnat, which only compounds the problems.

It's not our status as a "SUPERPOWER" that causes the dislike, it's what we've been doing with our power that causes the dislike, the hate, the Anti-American sentiments.

Ummmm.....big ballin, I think I have to agree with you on this one. I believe you hit the nail squarely on the head.

[Frigidus]

Remember, the entire reason behind Jefferson's plan for the Virginia board of education was to produce a populace capable of the critical thinking necessary to maintain a democratic republic. The way things are going now, I think we're inevitably headed for Idiocracy. It might even already be here.

Historical Fail. Jefferson supported the electoral college which was established to put the right person in power in the event that the idiots failed to make the right choice.

Indeed. Jefferson's idea of a good educational system involved weeding out the less intelligent early on so that the "best" received the most education and then led the country. That said, he still felt it was necessary for education to be equal for all.

[Phatscotty]

Remember, the entire reason behind Jefferson's plan for the Virginia board of education was to produce a populace capable of the critical thinking necessary to maintain a democratic republic. The way things are going now, I think we're inevitably headed for Idiocracy. It might even already be here.

Historical Fail. Jefferson supported the electoral college which was established to put the right person in power in the event that the idiots failed to make the right choice.

Indeed. Jefferson's idea of a good educational system involved weeding out the less intelligent early on so that the "best" received the most education and then led the country. That said, he still felt it was necessary for education to be equal for all.

oh god, wow

[Frigidus]

Remember, the entire reason behind Jefferson's plan for the Virginia board of education was to produce a populace capable of the critical thinking necessary to maintain a democratic republic. The way things are going now, I think we're inevitably headed for Idiocracy. It might even already be here.

Historical Fail. Jefferson supported the electoral college which was established to put the right person in power in the event that the idiots failed to make the right choice.

Indeed. Jefferson's idea of a good educational system involved weeding out the less intelligent early on so that the "best" received the most education and then led the country. That said, he still felt it was necessary for education to be equal for all.

oh god, wow

Hey, not my ideas. It was the 1700s though. It was a different time

[BigBallinStalin]

Get your ass to work if you really want something, don't act like you deserve for someone else to give it to you.

You mean, like the way Southern Plantation owners worked?

Keep on trying

It's true.

REALLY?! (I think you misunderstood to what I was referring...)

[BigBallinStalin]

It seems quite justifiable to be honest. It would be far less intellectually consistent it appears, to decry individuals for getting the maximum, when we laud praise on those who do so in other endeavors, even if the resulting outcome leads to wide inequities compared to others.

How could one square the two away? I am a juror on the one hand who feels the need to impose a maximum in this instance, while the mere mention of any sort of similar restriction in a different setting would be seen by most as antithetical to the system itself.

I don't think jurors should be limited by law. I think they should be limited by common sense and intelligence, which may be too much to ask.

Well Id offer that makes the proposed above even stronger. The notion of take as much as you can get is ingrained fairly deep into the culture id gather. Its shown in different fields where individuals could be seen as status models that any variety of individuals could be aware of. If something is culturally accepted to be the case, and given the other ways in which it is clearly accepted, then common sense should trend higher and higher upward.

I think you are missing a difference between arguably earned excess and arguably unearned excess. For example, the CEO of McDonald's perhaps earns a multimillion dollar salary. Whereas someone who spills McDonald's coffee on herself perhaps did not earn a multimillion dollar settlement. Incidentally, the pain felt by McDonald's by that particular jury verdict led to the following business change - McDonald's now puts warning labels on their cups that the coffee is hot. I'm sure some may find that to be some sort of significant progress in making hot coffee safer, but it certainly has me stumped.

Well what people tend to forget about that case is that she got 2nd and I'm pretty sure she also received 3rd degree burns, because the coffee was heated at dangerously high levels. That McDonald's establishment decided to forego health standards/rules by heating the coffe at an extremely high temperature in order to increase customer service speed.

I wouldn't want to support the notion that she deserves that much money, but that lawsuit and the punishment placed on McDonald's serves as a good warning for them to properly adhere to safety standards.

(I'm not arguing with your other points over the reasoning of why this and that happens and how it can be ridiculous because it really can be. I'm just providing more insight to this particular case.)

[joofro]

I would like to apologize, on behalf of the United States of America, for Stephanie Meyer.

It was an accident and we're sorry.

[MeDeFe]

I would like to apologize, on behalf of the United States of America, for Stephanie Meyer.

It was an accident and we're sorry.

Apology accepted.

Germany, too, has let loose untold horrors on humanity. As a resident I wish to apologize for the atrocities committed by Uwe Boll.

[BigBallinStalin]

I would like to apologize, on behalf of the United States of America, for Stephanie Meyer.

It was an accident and we're sorry.

Apology accepted.

Germany, too, has let loose untold horrors on humanity. As a resident I wish to apologize for the atrocities committed by Uwe Boll.

We've been waiting for this kind of apology for a long time, and it is deeply appreciated.

[Woodruff]

I think you are missing a difference between arguably earned excess and arguably unearned excess. For example, the CEO of McDonald's perhaps earns a multimillion dollar salary. Whereas someone who spills McDonald's coffee on herself perhaps did not earn a multimillion dollar settlement. Incidentally, the pain felt by McDonald's by that particular jury verdict led to the following business change - McDonald's now puts warning labels on their cups that the coffee is hot. I'm sure some may find that to be some sort of significant progress in making hot coffee safer, but it certainly has me stumped.

Well what people tend to forget about that case is that she got 2nd and I'm pretty sure she also received 3rd degree burns, because the coffee was heated at dangerously high levels. That McDonald's establishment decided to forego health standards/rules by heating the coffe at an extremely high temperature in order to increase customer service speed.

I wouldn't want to support the notion that she deserves that much money, but that lawsuit and the punishment placed on McDonald's serves as a good warning for them to properly adhere to safety standards.

(I'm not arguing with your other points over the reasoning of why this and that happens and how it can be ridiculous because it really can be. I'm just providing more insight to this particular case.)

I can buy that, except...part of the levy against McDonald's should have been that they LOWER THE TEMPERATURE OF THE COFFEE, rather than simply putting a warning label on the cup. But it wasn't, as far as I'm aware...it seems just as damn hot as always.

[pimpdave]

I would like to apologize, on behalf of the United States of America, for Stephanie Meyer.

It was an accident and we're sorry.

Apology accepted.

Germany, too, has let loose untold horrors on humanity. As a resident I wish to apologize for the atrocities committed by Uwe Boll.

IT'S ABOUT TIME

[got tonkaed]

I dont deny there is a distinction between the two, but it disregards either a)the notion that earned wage at times is over what "common sense would suggest" if such a thing is suggestable and b) that if there is a cultural relationship between the two it interacts in a relatively subconcious fashion, which influences the thought processes but perhaps is difficult for the individual to articluate in the moment. Possibly also c) with a lacking of a mechanism to define where the upward limits are, there is a greyness that can be exploited to define personal value as overly inflated thus making recooperating damages a much pricier endeavor.

Id assume a clever team could play upon this decision making environment.

Frankly, I think all of it ignores some other issues, namely that the plaintiff attorneys apparently do a good job in arguing their respective cases and that juries are more likely to punish a defendant that can afford such punishment. If the defendant had been Mom and Pop Coffee, the award would not be substantial. In other words, the award has little to do with the case and more to do with the defendant. I find that to be wrong, though I understand the rewarding cultural ideals that juries must have. In other words, I understand what you're saying, but if I was on a jury, my award would not be as substantial.

The intent of the bold is the same as the first three sentences of your post.

I have no problem with disagreeing with it, i just find it to be inconsistent even under wage earned vs penalties deserved as you have proposed.

[thegreekdog]

I dont deny there is a distinction between the two, but it disregards either a)the notion that earned wage at times is over what "common sense would suggest" if such a thing is suggestable and b) that if there is a cultural relationship between the two it interacts in a relatively subconcious fashion, which influences the thought processes but perhaps is difficult for the individual to articluate in the moment. Possibly also c) with a lacking of a mechanism to define where the upward limits are, there is a greyness that can be exploited to define personal value as overly inflated thus making recooperating damages a much pricier endeavor.

Id assume a clever team could play upon this decision making environment.

Frankly, I think all of it ignores some other issues, namely that the plaintiff attorneys apparently do a good job in arguing their respective cases and that juries are more likely to punish a defendant that can afford such punishment. If the defendant had been Mom and Pop Coffee, the award would not be substantial. In other words, the award has little to do with the case and more to do with the defendant. I find that to be wrong, though I understand the rewarding cultural ideals that juries must have. In other words, I understand what you're saying, but if I was on a jury, my award would not be as substantial.

The intent of the bold is the same as the first three sentences of your post.

I have no problem with disagreeing with it, i just find it to be inconsistent even under wage earned vs penalties deserved as you have proposed.

I don't understand your statement.

caveat - I'm not being sarcastic, I'm not trying to start anything, I'm not accusing anyone of having poor grammar. Just don't understand.

[got tonkaed]

my initial post on the topic related to what i percieved as an inconsistency between outcry regarding civil suit awards and the lack of outcry regarding other forms of similarly high amounts of pay earned in other social arenas. I expanded upon this using a culture based argument which I believe showed where it would be somewhat inconsistent to hold the two scenarios as very different from one another.

In responding to your distinction about penalties owed vs wages earned i responded with 3 points of interest. Weaving the three together I argued a team (which should be understood to be legal team) could play upon this decision making environment. It should further be understood to be the prosecuting team, as the defending team would not apply under the conditions i present.

Your next post in my view, essentially said the same thing as my proposition that a legal team could make use of the conditions (as far as your first 3 sentences were concerned).

You mention you think the above to be wrong (presumably morally) in the sense that juries should not make decisions in this way. I am saying that I understand your point, I (in a similar fashion to my original post) can see where it comes from, but I find it to be intellectually inconsistent. Despite seeing why some would put a dialetic between penalties owed (capped) vs wages earned (uncapped) I do not think it is a consistent way of thinking.

Thus I post in circles.

[thegreekdog]

my initial post on the topic related to what i percieved as an inconsistency between outcry regarding civil suit awards and the lack of outcry regarding other forms of similarly high amounts of pay earned in other social arenas. I expanded upon this using a culture based argument which I believe showed where it would be somewhat inconsistent to hold the two scenarios as very different from one another.

In responding to your distinction about penalties owed vs wages earned i responded with 3 points of interest. Weaving the three together I argued a team (which should be understood to be legal team) could play upon this decision making environment. It should further be understood to be the prosecuting team, as the defending team would not apply under the conditions i present.

Your next post in my view, essentially said the same thing as my proposition that a legal team could make use of the conditions (as far as your first 3 sentences were concerned).

You mention you think the above to be wrong (presumably morally) in the sense that juries should not make decisions in this way. I am saying that I understand your point, I (in a similar fashion to my original post) can see where it comes from, but I find it to be intellectually inconsistent. Despite seeing why some would put a dialetic between penalties owed (capped) vs wages earned (uncapped) I do not think it is a consistent way of thinking.

Thus I post in circles.

Gotcha. I did not know what you meant by "team" (among other things). On the consistency issue, I don't think I'm being inconsistent. I don't think a government should impose caps on salaries or wages and I don't think the government should impose caps on jury awards. However, I think common sense should prevail on both salaries and on jury awards... self-regulation if you will. For example, I do have a major problem with a company like AIG, who was bailed out, giving outrageous bonuses to its employees for no apparent reason; which is why I oppose bailouts in any event. If a company is bailed out , it has no valid reason to make its compensation reasonable.

[got tonkaed]

If that were to be the case I would say we have different approximations of where common sense lies in terms of upward limits for earned wage.

I would argue it is generally seen as positive to earn massive amounts of money in most circumstances, though bailout bonuses are a possible exception. Though it would appear as much anger on that issue is related to government money used (if not more) than toward the individual themselves who recieved the bonus. Few people would ask the individuals to pay the money back if there wasnt some vague sense that the money came out of their own pocket. In most senses then I would say common sense does not say what you are saying it says in regards to earned wage.

[thegreekdog]

If that were to be the case I would say we have different approximations of where common sense lies in terms of upward limits for earned wage.

I would argue it is generally seen as positive to earn massive amounts of money in most circumstances, though bailout bonuses are a possible exception. Though it would appear as much anger on that issue is related to government money used (if not more) than toward the individual themselves who recieved the bonus. Few people would ask the individuals to pay the money back if there wasnt some vague sense that the money came out of their own pocket. In most senses then I would say common sense does not say what you are saying it says in regards to earned wage.

No, I think it still does. I would also argue that a company that does poorly in the marketplace should not pay its CEO or any other strategic advisor vast sums of money, which, I understand, goes on a lot. I don't think that's common sensical, whether or not the government is giving that company a handout.

[got tonkaed]

I think thats the wrong perspective in terms of the company paying the employee. For it to be as consistent in terms of the wage earner, it should not primarily depend on if the company is correct in paying the individual. If someone overvalues or incorrectly values my work, I do not believe general consensus is that I am obligated to pay back or not accept money that is earned.

I think in terms of the both wage earning and civil awards to remain consistent the focus has to be on the individuals pursuit or accepting as it is probably more generally agreed upon that individuals will try to maximize benefits (the employee/claimant perspective) as opposed to companies and juries are trying to give the maximum amount possible to those who they pay.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well what people tend to forget about that case is that she got 2nd and I'm pretty sure she also received 3rd degree burns, because the coffee was heated at dangerously high levels. That McDonald's establishment decided to forego health standards/rules by heating the coffe at an extremely high temperature in order to increase customer service speed.

I wouldn't want to support the notion that she deserves that much money, but that lawsuit and the punishment placed on McDonald's serves as a good warning for them to properly adhere to safety standards.

(I'm not arguing with your other points over the reasoning of why this and that happens and how it can be ridiculous because it really can be. I'm just providing more insight to this particular case.)

I can buy that, except...part of the levy against McDonald's should have been that they LOWER THE TEMPERATURE OF THE COFFEE, rather than simply putting a warning label on the cup. But it wasn't, as far as I'm aware...it seems just as damn hot as always.

I'm pretty sure they were warned about it because one of main points made during that case was that the coffee was being heated at extremely high and unsafe temperatures. For failing to comply with health and safety standards, they lost a lot money from that point alone. The coffee they serve you now should be at the suitable hot temperature (just not as scaldingly hot as the coffee that injured that lady), but maybe at the McDonald's you frequent you could have a profitable settlement right in your lap just waiting to be exploited... (Just kidding. You're a good man, but if the money's right... )