Non-US Dopers: What do you see as ridiculous American propaganda?

[Leaffan]

@Cinnamon_Imp

Not in the same way. We don’t view teenagers as paid labour to use as babysitters. We’d be wary enough of leaving teens in a house unattended in case of social services declaring us unfit parents, or more likely, the teens throwing a party and wrecking the place (and their livers). We certainly wouldn’t trust a 16 year old to be left alone in the house, in charge of a toddler.

It’s more like family would be unpaid babysitters, or professional childminders would be hired (especially during the day).

We lived in the US when I was younger, and my mother was horrified when friends asked if my 12 year old sister would babysit their kids. We’d be more likely to use a babysitter for a 12 year old!

That’s nuts. I didn’t realize that and I’m originally from your area. 12 to 16 year olds make wonderful babysitters. Professional childminders? WTF?

[Cinnamon_Imp]

@Leaffan

That’s nuts. I didn’t realize that and I’m originally from your area. 12 to 16 year olds make wonderful babysitters. Professional childminders? WTF?

Perhaps that’s just the circles I move in, but a quick google gets me:

“When selecting a babysitter or childminder remember to:
ask for at least two references and contact the referees yourself
only use registered childminders - a list is kept by your local authority children’s information service.” (from the NSPCCsite)

"The Children’s Legal Centre and children’s charity the NSPCC advise that children should not be left with a child minder younger than 16. " BBC articleon parents being prosecuted for Home Alone children.

"And under-16s should not be left alone or in charge of younger children overnight. " articlefrom the Guardian newspaper.

[Acsenray]

@Reply

You mean beyond the “imminent lawless action” test? If so, may I ask for a cite?

What do you consider “trouble”? I consider this to be unjustified and unjust – comedy writer Daniel O’Brien of “Cracked” wrote an obviously satirical article on “How to kidnap the president’s daughters.” He was subject to an investigation by the Secret Service and placed on the No-Fly list, which has become something like the legendary “permanent record” – How a Comedy Article Got Me Placed On the No-Fly List | Cracked.com

How about something more serious?Vikram Buddhi, a foreign student researching cancer at Purdue, was sentenced to 5 years in prison after he went on a Yahoo business discussion forum and made a bunch of posts saying that Iraqis should try their best to assassinate President Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their spouses. The Secret Service initially determined that there was no genuine threat or crime to be prosecuted but he was still charged and convicted of threatening the president. After he was released from prison, he was seized and imprisoned by the immigration authorities.

I just don’t think it’s really useful to make certain phrases or words erroneous if they don’t pollute the meaning of the sentence through ambiguity.

I think it’s useful to maintain an unambiguous distinction that let’s us understand with less context whether he was hung on a wall like a tapestry or hanged from the neck until dead.

It’s just the vaporous “they”, meaning “the imaginary people who potentially disagree with my biases, and are more easily dehumanized and ignored if clumped together into an unspecific blob”

In that case, in the case of our free speech policies and jurisprudence, it seems to me that no such “they” or “power” exists. We have the breadth if protection we have now because certain people have decided to fight for it and certain people in power have accepted their arguments, for the time being. There are constant threats from people and officials who would love to see that narrowed.

[Grey]

Daytime child minders sound like daycare in North America. Babysitters are typically for a few hours at night - say for a parent date night.

[Reply]

@Cinnamon_Imp

Not in the same way. We don’t view teenagers as paid labour to use as babysitters. We’d be wary enough of leaving teens in a house unattended in case of social services declaring us unfit parents, or more likely, the teens throwing a party and wrecking the place (and their livers). We certainly wouldn’t trust a 16 year old to be left alone in the house, in charge of a toddler.

It’s more like family would be unpaid babysitters, or professional childminders would be hired (especially during the day).

We lived in the US when I was younger, and my mother was horrified when friends asked if my 12 year old sister would babysit their kids. We’d be more likely to use a babysitter for a 12 year old!

When are kids considered adult enough to be on their own?

[Baron_Greenback]

@Reply

When are kids considered adult enough to be on their own?

When I was growing up, about ten. I get what Cinnamon Imp is saying, but it’s really not unusual for for a 14/15-year-old to be looking after a younger child or two for a few hours in the evening. Not overnight, but to let the parents out for a meal or a movie? Happens all the time.

[Reply]

@Acsenray

What do you consider “trouble”? I consider this to be unjustified and unjust – comedy writer Daniel O’Brien of “Cracked” wrote an obviously satirical article on “How to kidnap the president’s daughters.” He was subject to an investigation by the Secret Service and placed on the No-Fly list, which has become something like the legendary “permanent record” – How a Comedy Article Got Me Placed On the No-Fly List | Cracked.com

Yeah, the no-fly list is another one of those heinous abuses of power of the Bushbama era.

Not sure if that writer was actually put on the list, as opposed to constantly being harassed by "random’ searches. It also seemed like he took down the article rather than fighting it by choice, and then followed it up with another satirical article to sell his book. In other countries he might be dead already.

Not that this diminishes your overall point – that yes, people do get in trouble sometimes if their joke reaches too far, for some arbitrary value of “too far”. It seems to have gotten worse after 9/11, but I wasn’t old enough before that to really judge. And the no-fly list is itself evil and abusive.

How about something more serious?Vikram Buddhi, a foreign student researching cancer at Purdue, was sentenced to 5 years in prison after he went on a Yahoo business discussion forum and made a bunch of posts saying that Iraqis should try their best to assassinate President Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their spouses. The Secret Service initially determined that there was no genuine threat or crime to be prosecuted but he was still charged and convicted of threatening the president. After he was released from prison, he was seized and imprisoned by the immigration authorities.

Foreigners in America basically have no rights. They’re convenient laborers to be exploited and then deported when no longer necessary. We’re lucky, so far, that citizens still get at least lip service to protect their “freedoms”.

I think it’s useful to maintain an unambiguous distinction that let’s us understand with less context whether he was hung on a wall like a tapestry or hanged from the neck until dead.

OK, then we’ll just agree to disagree. I don’t think this is worth belaboring.

In that case, in the case of our free speech policies and jurisprudence, it seems to me that no such “they” or “power” exists. We have the breadth if protection we have now because certain people have decided to fight for it and certain people in power have accepted their arguments, for the time being. There are constant threats from people and officials who would love to see that narrowed.

Stepping into IMO territory: Yeah, those “certain people” are the “they” – the whole of the legislative and judicial branches and the highest bidders who contribute to their beliefs du jour, and to some unknown extent, the secret powers of the executive that can conveniently bypass whatever the other two set up. It’s the “they” who decide we may for now speak out, the they who can arbitrarily silence anyone with a letter or a gun, the they who can change the rules as they please as long as they can get enough of the rest of they to sign on. “They” is the combined decision-making authority of the United States, as distinct and opposed to “we” the people. It’s shorthand for Not Your Average Citizen, someone with actual legal or financial sway. Of course it’s undemocratic, because power in America is undemocratic.

[njtt]

@Acsenray

I think it’s useful to maintain an unambiguous distinction that let’s us understand with less context whether he was hung on a wall like a tapestry or hanged from the neck until dead.

So people sometimes get hung on a wall like a tapestry where you come from? :rolleyes:

[Acsenray]

@Reply

In other countries he might be dead already.

Not to get on your case, given your following statements, but this kind of statement infuriates me. It sets such a low standard that it’s essentially meaningless. We are the ones who tout our free status; we should be embarrassed to follow them up with this kind of thing.

Foreigners in America basically have no rights. They’re convenient laborers to be exploited and then deported when no longer necessary. We’re lucky, so far, that citizens still get at least lip service to protect their “freedoms”.

I consider the first thing to be a travesty and its very existence should make us embarrassed to tour our freedom. As for the latter, I don’t consider it a matter of luck.

“They” is the combined decision-making authority of the United States, as distinct and opposed to “we” the people. It’s shorthand for Not Your Average Citizen, someone with actual legal or financial sway. Of course it’s undemocratic, because power in America is undemocratic.

I don’t want to belabor this either, but I would hesitate to sum up this circumstance as “powers that be.” It makes it sound monolithic and organized and it also seems to surrender some of our own power as citizens.

@njtt

So people sometimes get hung on a wall like a tapestry where you come from? :rolleyes:

I’m sure I’ve heard of it somewhere. Maybe I saw it in a Max Brothers film. It must be more common than hanging as a form of capital punishment in my state.

[Reply]

@Acsenray

It sets such a low standard that it’s essentially meaningless. We are the ones who tout our free status; we should be embarrassed to follow them up with this kind of thing.

True. I was only trying to say “It’s not that bad here yet” – in regards to free speech specifically. How long that will last, I don’t know.

I don’t want to belabor this either, but I would hesitate to sum up this circumstance as “powers that be.” It makes it sound monolithic and organized and it also seems to surrender some of our own power as citizens.

Again this is probably IMHO territory, but I just don’t think citizens have that power to begin with, and operating under the delusion that they do only serves to strengthen the Powers That Be. Discontent is a necessary precursor to change, and so long as citizens are content with their illusory power, the status quo shall remain. What we have is comfort. A lot of it. What we have very little of is power.

Edit: I just realized we were in IMHO all along :smack:

[Reply]

@njtt

So people sometimes get hung on a wall like a tapestry where you come from? :rolleyes:

If only

[SciFiSam]

@Cinnamon_Imp

Not in the same way. We don’t view teenagers as paid labour to use as babysitters. We’d be wary enough of leaving teens in a house unattended in case of social services declaring us unfit parents, or more likely, the teens throwing a party and wrecking the place (and their livers). We certainly wouldn’t trust a 16 year old to be left alone in the house, in charge of a toddler.

It’s more like family would be unpaid babysitters, or professional childminders would be hired (especially during the day).

We lived in the US when I was younger, and my mother was horrified when friends asked if my 12 year old sister would babysit their kids. We’d be more likely to use a babysitter for a 12 year old!

Not true everywhere in the UK. I made tons of money babysitting as a teenager and so did most of my female friends. It’s less common now, but it does happen. Nobody asks for two references for a casual babysitter.

[Malacandra]

@Acsenray

You think there aren’t interesting grave sites in other countries, or ones that are much, much older? And why single out grave sites in particular? There’s a lot more to history than visiting grave sites.

Well, yes. In the UK we have Iron Age remains, Roman remains including Roman roads that are in use to this day, Saxon remains, Viking remains, Norman remains, battlefields from the Wars of the Roses as well as from the English Civil War, mediaeval cathedrals, stately homes, the birthplaces and gravesites of countless writers, artists, scientists and philosophers, assorted relics of the dawn of industrialization, universities that were old when the Pilgrim Fathers were setting out, and an inordinate number of Great War memorials (it’s truly rare to find a village without one). We have the Mary Rose, HMS Victory and HMS Warrior all within a short walk of each other in Portsmouth, Napoleonic-era fortifications and pillboxes that were built to fight off a Nazi invasion. Admittedly we may not know for sure where Robin Hood is really buried or how true the stories about him are, but compared to the known whereabouts of a few criminals who used to shoot each other for a couple of decades in the late 19th century, we’re not too badly off for history.

[Martini_Enfield]

The idea the US is the most free

@Reply

I’m not usually one to defend the whole FREEDOM!!! thing because it usually is bullshit, but I will say that the US has one of the better Freedom of Speech guarantees (at least before this decade).

Legally, there’s a case for the US having some of the highest guarantees of freedom of speech, but culturally I don’t think the US is freer than any other Western democracy because there’s immense social and economic pressure not to voice the wrong opinions or views.

Legally, you have the right to make racist comments in the US, but if you do so, people are not going to think very highly of you and the consequences to your reputation, business interests and the like can be extraordinarily severe - as Donald Sterling has found recently.

As a non-American, the reaction to his comments seems… excessive. I don’t agree with them and they’re obviously not particularly progressive or inclusive, but are they honestly worth a $2.5m fine and a lifetime ban from the sport?

How is that really any different from it being against the law to make racist comments?

[Reply]

@Martini_Enfield

Legally, there’s a case for the US having some of the highest guarantees of freedom of speech, but culturally I don’t think the US is freer than any other Western democracy because there’s immense social and economic pressure not to voice the wrong opinions or views.

[snip]

How is that really any different from it being against the law to make racist comments?

The value of uncensored speech is the potential to sway audiences against your government’s will (colored rights, feminism, anti-war, lower taxes, whatever). It’s a check against government oppression, not citizen disagreement. Free speech isn’t a guarantee that people will listen, it’s a guarantee that you won’t be jailed (or worse) for saying it. You still have to make a good argument for your cause to convince anyone.

If you abuse that freedom and say stupid, unpopular things that piss off the crowd, that’s your problem. Just like if you’re a terrible speaker and nobody listens, that’s your problem. The government isn’t your public speaking teacher – well, unless you’re actually taking a speech class in a public school.

For checks against citizen oppression, we have the normal set of laws and also federal and state protected classes, some of which can be expressed as speech (religion and politics, for example). In California, for example, no one is supposed to be able to discriminate against you in hiring, etc. based on your political activities. The recent ouster of anti-gay Mozilla CEO probably would’ve been illegal discrimination if he could prove he was forced/pressured to resign, but fortunately for the organization he didn’t sue and gave them a graceful exit.

[Gary_Kumquat]

What do you see as ridiculous American propaganda?

That a game based upon a variant of rugby, with play that mainly involves picking a ball up with your hands and carrying it, or throwing it forward for another player to catch with their hands, should be called football. But the one the rest of the world plays where you kick a ball with your foot, should be called soccer.

[Martini_Enfield]

@Reply

The value of uncensored speech is the potential to sway audiences against your government’s will (colored rights, feminism, anti-war, lower taxes, whatever). It’s a check against government oppression, not citizen disagreement. Free speech isn’t a guarantee that people will listen, it’s a guarantee that you won’t be jailed (or worse) for saying it. You still have to make a good argument for your cause to convince anyone.

I’m not talking about the theory behind free speech, though, I’m talking about its practical interpretation in the present day. You don’t have free speech if voicing the wrong opinions is going to ruin your reputation and community standing (among other things), just as you don’t have it if voicing the wrong opinions will get you thrown in prison.

@Gary_Kumquat

That a game based upon a variant of rugby, with play that mainly involves picking a ball up with your hands and carrying it, or throwing it forward for another player to catch with their hands, should be called football. But the one the rest of the world plays where you kick a ball with your foot, should be called soccer.

To be fair, that’s not a uniquely American thing. There are four major sports in Australia which all claim to be football - Rugby League, Rugby Union, Australian Rules and Association Football.

Which game people think you mean when you say “Football” is largely determined by context and geographic location.

[Reply]

@Martini_Enfield

I’m not talking about the theory behind free speech, though, I’m talking about its practical interpretation in the present day. You don’t have free speech if voicing the wrong opinions is going to ruin your reputation and community standing (among other things), just as you don’t have it if voicing the wrong opinions will get you thrown in prison.

It’s not about “theory vs practice”, it’s “government vs public”. Free speech prohibits government punishment, not public reaction.

I don’t understand how it could possibly work otherwise, even in theory. Are you saying people should not be able to react to what you say? How does that make sense? People are generally free to associate with one another and to do business with who they please (or not), unless not doing so unfairly discriminates against a protected class.

If that were not the case – if people were forced to accept (or at least ignore) your speech and treat you as though you never said it, even if they vehemently disagree with you – you couldn’t have organizations of like-minded people, whether that’s corporations, non-profits, political parties, etc. You could say “I hate Republicans and you’re all idiots” and demand to become the local GOP chairperson, and they’d be bound by force of law to consider you alongside their actual allies even though they clearly disagree with you? Why? What’s the point of forcing people to do that?

Your reputation and standing were in the first place built by your beliefs and your actions. It stands to reason they could be taken down by the same. The same people who respect you for who you are are free to disrespect you for who you later become. How could it be otherwise without making social interactions meaningless?

The thing about government censorship is that you can’t escape it because the government is everywhere. The NBA, by contrast, is just one organization of voluntary members. If they don’t want this Sterling guy, the KKK can take him and start their own basketball program. You don’t have that luxury with government – you’re subject to it whether you like it or not. And if they censor you, you’re jailed or dead and can talk to no one. If the NBA censors you, you can still talk to whoever the hell will listen to you, and you can continue to argue with the NBA in the court of public opinion indefinitely. You might not win, but that’s your problem. Heck, plenty of racists get away with it and even attract their own following – not just the KKK, but anti-immigrationists, pro-ethnic groups, whatever.

That’s not really even a free speech issue, IMO. The NBA is basically saying “Yeah, ok, we heard you. We disagree. We’re not obligated to keep you around. Bye!” Nobody censored him, they just chose to no longer associate with him in that capacity. Even the government can’t force you to like someone.

[Reply]

Maybe this is another way to think of it:

If you voice an unpopular opinion, what should people (as in the public) be allowed to do in response?

• Kill you? Nope – already covered by criminal law
• Imprison or torture you? Nope, same.
• Dislike you? Sure, they’re only human.
• Disrespect you? Yeah, you made a fool of yourself.
• Dislike you enough to force you out of their private club? Sure, why not? What good are private clubs otherwise?
• Ignore you? Sure. You can’t force people to listen to you.
• Silence you publicly? How can they? They’d have to physically gag you (assault, covered by criminal law) or tamper with your telecommunications (destruction of property, eavesdropping, criminal trespass, whatever) or just speak louder/better/with more money than you (that’s their own free speech).
• Fire you? It depends on what you said, but generally, employment is at-will and you can’t force people to hire or keep people they don’t like. (Unless the dislike is a protected class)

So I guess I’m at a loss as to what censorship would even mean when it comes to the public. What should be a prohibited reaction to your speech?

[Evil_Captor]

The guy who is shouting “USA! We’re number one!” isn’t a propagandist, he’s a moron expressing simpleminded jingoism. Same with land of the free, in most cases.