Envision, Create, Share

Welcome to HBGames, a leading amateur game development forum and Discord server. All are welcome, and amongst our ranks you will find experts in their field from all aspects of video game design and development.

Please Get Off Your High Horse, World

His militia killed approx. 2 million people when he was in power. Anywhere from 150,000 to 340,000 Iraqis (we still have not discovered all his mass-graves, and it's estimated that nearly 100,000 deaths went un-reported due to various reasons, usually fear). Also, between 450K-750,000 Iranian combatants. That's Iran-Iraq war alone. 1K Kuwaiti nationals. 1.5K-200K Iraqis (himself) in the Gulf War. 100K Kurds. 150K-300K misc. dissidents. Nearly half a million of these killed were children. Countless others are still reported missing from the time of his reign.

I have no idea what your sources are on that. 2 million is the total for all deaths "attributable" to him (not his militia's victims), including the Iranians, and its kind of difficult to say that he was the one responsible for the Iran-Iraq war, especially since that one's been raging since before the time of Muhammad. Second those half a million children are our fault, due to the sanctions.

Tax and spend, tax and spend. Oy. Why is it that liberals are always the first to decry the government, and then turn around and give them more power? Why would I want such morons to handle my money? I want privatization, dammit!! There must be a happy medium.

I say we instead propose a bill which lowers the cost of medical care in general. We phase out Social Security over time, and phase in private IRA accounts over a number of years. It'll be kaput in 2044 anyway, having bankrupted us, so we make it a goal for the IRA switch to be completed by then. Roosevelt himself said it was only a temporary thing when he issued it, because he foresaw the massive deficit it'd create.
Wrong! I don't want morons handling my money. I suggest you read John Dean's book Broken Government (and I think you'll have a hard time impugning his neutrality). For the past 10 years, people who believe that "government is the problem" have been in power. When you have people with that philosophy running government, they tend to spend their time screwing it up so much that government is the problem. The thing is that it's just their government.

As for SS running out, that's a ridiculous claim. Every study (not funded by stock brokers), including the GAO's, has found that SS will remain solvent for many decades to come, even with the baby boomers retiring, with minor tweaks (retirement age up two years and getting rid of or raising the FICA tax cap). And before you recommend switching to IRAs, I suggest you take a look at England or Argentina. For a long time, both countries had pension programs similar to our social security. Both switched to individual accounts in the 90s, and both suffered ruin because of it. When the stock market falls, IRAs suffer. SS and England's and Argentina's pensions ware based on government bonds, which are much more stable, and so there's less chance of the elderly losing their retirement. Also, IRAs are vulnerable to fraud (Enron, anyone?) and mismanagement by brokers, which ended up hurting retirees in Britain.

And even if Roosevelt intended to make SS (or Medicare, I can't tell which you're talking about) temporary, Lincoln never intended to give voting rights to the slaves he freed.

And you forget about illegal immigrants-- of which there are ~11 million. If they all spent about $300 a year (and that's being REEEEEAAALLLY conservative) on medical costs without paying this U.H.Care tax, that's an added $3.3B on top of the original estimate, also to increase every year.

Illegal immigration is the hobgoblin of racist minds. First of all, because taxes are deducted from payroll and (in most states) sales, illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than citizens and legal immigrants (they can't file a tax return and get a refund. Second, we're already paying for health care costs for illegal immigrants--through emergency clinics. The fact is that regular health care, which can catch serious but treatable diseases like scarlet fever, tuberculosis, etc. before they require hospitalization, reduces total costs to the system. Also, by giving the poorest access to health care other than the emergency room, it frees up doctors and nurses for things like car crashes, heart attacks, and gun shot wounds.

In the UK, hip surgeries take ~11 months. For knees, 3-5 months, sometimes a year. MRI's take 3-12 months. The list goes on.

Why? The doctors are strung-out and there aren't enough of them. Countries with socialized health care suffer more inexperienced doctors as they spend less time in training and cannot spend enough time with patients, and they suffer botched surgeries for the same reason.

I'd much rather pay for insurance than wait my whole life, only to have my surgeries botched. So what if the hobo on the corner doesn't get medical coverage? Yeah, it's insensitive, but ...

It is true that the US has shorter wait times than most countries for purely elective procedures and regular check ups. On the other hand, for a non-routine visit, 81% of patients in New Zealand got a same or next-day appointment, 71% in Britain, 69% in Germany, 66% in Australia, 47% in the U.S., and 36% in Canada. You're also comparing the US, which has a broken health care system, to Canada, which has a broken health care system. Compare us with Germany or Australia.

And, yes, it is insensitive to not care whether the "hobo" on the corner gets health care or not. It's also incredibly stupid. Ever heard of epidemic diseases? It starts like this: someone who's fairly healthy picks up an exotic bug (say bird flu) and brings it to America, or a new strain pops up. In a population where most of the population is underinsured or not insured at all (which is where America is heading), the disease rapidly finds a home in the subpopulations without access to health care. When someone without health insurance starts feeling sick, they will likely have no choice but to continue with their everyday life until they are so sick they must go to a hospital. By this time they will likely have infected hundreds of people, more in a particularly crowded city. This massive spread can cause a pandemic, breaking the back of even the best designed health care system. On the other hand, when everyone can go to the doctor when they realize they have something more serious than a head cold, the transmission can be reduced, and often averted.

The American government spends more on Medicaid and Medicare than any other country in the world, comparing socialized medical care.... It's less efficient than private insurance, and there are some things wrong with it, but I grew up protected under it (grew up poor), and it worked. And I still didn't have to wait indeterminably long.
Absolutely true. But look at that first sentence again. We spend more per person on Medicaid and Medicare than any other country with socialized medicine, mostly because politicians (on both sides, but mostly Republicans) have been bought and paid for by pharmaceutical companies, and so the main strategy that other countries use to keep costs down, using the massive buying power of the federal government to negotiate prices, is illegal.

But we're not socialist/communist, and the wealth is not distributed. There are ways for the incredibly poor to work their ways up (I myself lived out of motel rooms and parked cars growing up, and here I own a huge townhome and two brand new midsize cars and have a good job.), and there are pitfalls that bankrupt the rich. But varying classes is what keeps the base structure of capitalism. I'd go into more detail on my theory there but it'd take forever I'm afraid.
Good for you. But the fact that the US is the only country in the world that will not use socialist programs to help its own citizens is ONE OF THE REASONS I HATE THIS DAMN COUNTRY! Second, we're not capitalist, we have a mixed economy, and many parts would make Adam Smith tear his hair out. Most of our laws, especially those regarding taxation and corporations, are specifically designed to allow those with money to make money, and keep those without poor so they will remain a cheap labor force.

As for the budget thing, I agree. But I already stated that it's wiser for us to be isolationist financially, it's just not realistic.
Actually, it's rather stupid of us to be isolationists. Last time we tried it there were these little things called the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Holocaust. Ever heard of them?

I don't see a problem with executing anyone who deserves it, and is proven without a doubt to be guilty of extreme crimes, such as first-degree murder, pedophilic rape and murder, or extreme treason. A 12 year old kid who rapes and kills their sister for no reason doesn't really have a shot at a good life anyway, and will just become a burden of the state since they'll be in institutions the rest of their lives. The problem is in proving it, which we're only recently starting to get good at, since before DNA evidence it was mostly based on speculation.
The first problem with execution is that even with DNA evidence, certainty is iffy. Second, a lot of people are executed in the US without DNA evidence. Third, juries consistently believe eyewitnesses, even though studies have proven that eyewitnesses to crimes are more likely to be wrong than right. Fourth, most people executed are black for the simple reason that white juries are more likely to execute a black man, and victims are often unable to distinguish between two people of a different race than their own. Fifth, even if we were able to tell with 100% certainty that a person is guilty, there is a serious question of mental state, which juries often discard.

Finally, I will appeal to Julius Caesar. Before he became Emperor, he was a Senator, and during his time in the Senate a group of traitors were brought before the Senate for judgment. Cicero argued for the death penalty, even though the law at the time did not provide for it. Caesar's response was that, in taking vengeance (which is all the death penalty is, since it has no deterrent effect beyond that of incarceration) we become less than human, our evil often extending beyond that of those we execute, since our crime is done with deliberation, preparation, and, worst of all, we commit it while hiding behind the skirts of lady justice.

As for 12 year olds (and up to 21 year olds), there is a serious question of mental state. The brain changes shape dramatically between childhood and adulthood, and pathways that cause violence can be reshaped.

And if anyone would like to read the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, it's here.
 
Sorry, Bearcat, but Socialism has no place in this country. It is what Hillary and Obama are pushing and it would not work here. No one has a right to healthcare. The government is not responsible for making sure we can afford to go to the doctors or ER. Most countries with Nationalized Healthcare have many issues including patients who cannot find a doctor. In Great Britain, people are pulling their own teeth cause dentists will not accept them. That is our future here if NH gets approved.

Take the SCHIP bill for instance. Bush was right to veto this due to where the funds were coming from. (Tax on Cigarettes? WTF?) The liberal twist of saying Bush doesn't care about the children is sickening.

I am not a fan of the liberal thinking you have here. It is very misguiding. You say that he ONLY killed 2 million? Like that makes it better? He was a vicious man and he needed to be taken out of power, end of story. I don't care if he killed 1000 people, that is still too many.

I'd have more to say, but I just don't feel like it. I do not like the way liberals have been twisting so many of the issues (like you have here). Please tell me you do not support hate organizations like Move On or Media Matters.

I gotta not come back to this thread, cause I will get very angry with some of the things said.

God Bless. And remember NH is dangerous and say no to Clinton!
 
Too bad you actually didn't read ANY of what he wrote, it would have been enlightening for someone like you.
jbart321;307734 said:
No one has a right to healthcare.

We all have the same rights, not just the ones who pay

jbart321;307734 said:
I am not a fan of the liberal thinking you have here. It is very misguiding. You say that he ONLY killed 2 million? Like that makes it better? He was a vicious man and he needed to be taken out of power, end of story. I don't care if he killed 1000 people, that is still too many.

His only problem with the US was oil, but ease now, you stripped them off that. A menace? with what? the imaginary weapons they had?

Way to go bear, you said it all. I have nothing else to add to this. Smart guy, smart post
 
Look like you can turn to the average American to poke fun at because they are "Uneducated", but you don't have to look for people in Europe that don't know whats going on...just look at their gov't.

a leaked document from the Italian gov't.


Baffling 'demon' fires blamed on space aliens


heres the link http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58378



PS. sorry not to disrupt your argument...but I had to share this...I laughed for like 10 mins...
 
sixtyandaquarter;305817 said:
Honestly thousands of Americans have way too much self respect in themselves over their country.

Key example?
I live in an area where Mexicans line the streets on the other side of my block. They stand there -no matter the weather, they are actually more dependable than the post office: rain snow, my ass- and they have their work boots and their flannels and handkerchiefs. They stand there to be picked up by trucks to do manual labor, mostly in construction.

They get paid garbage.

People complain that these Mexicans are stealing their jobs. These people picket. These people also are the runs who refused the job. These are the ones who tried to screw over the unions and the city. These are the ones who started something very wrong. And they want the jobs back, that they won't work - why? Because I hear only one answer. "It's an American's job".

That's why some Americans have too much pride in the matter.
But to make it sound like no other country has this is completely laughable. If that was the intent I suggest someone actually go and visit other countries.

But then again, the US isn't perfect. But I haven't seen a single nation come any closer (OR further) to perfection than us.

I'm sorry for being so latem but after reading this I just had to share this.
I love you.

I HATE having to hear lazy white kids angst about immigrants taking their jobs, later to whine that they have to spend 5 hours at a Mc Donalds Cash register... Ooohhh
 
Regarding the Sadaam thing, well I'm sure Cubans were happy when the CIA (and correct me if that's wrong) helped to oust Batistia and look what happened there...lol. But yeah, I'm playing devil's advocate with this. I don't think Hussein was a good leader of Iraq or anything.

I HATE having to hear lazy white kids angst about immigrants taking their jobs, later to whine that they have to spend 5 hours at a Mc Donalds Cash register... Ooohhh

Yeah, I hate that too. Honestly, the only reason why we're seeing all this craziness about Illegal Immigrants is because the average middle class America is not completely economically secure.

And then when these insecurties fester then it starts turning into those crazy border patrol vigilantes that are "protecting America's interests". :rollseyes:
 
PINEDAXP;307748":e1hu5jsq said:
Way to go bear, you said it all. I have nothing else to add to this. Smart guy, smart post

I won't deny he's smart. But having a liberal agenda doesn't mean you're "smarter" than someone with a conservative opinion, it means that you have a liberal opinion. Democrats see socialist liberals as brilliant thinkers who care a lot about everyone. Conservatives see them as communists and hippies who are jealous of those who make a lot of money, who don't look out of free trade.

I'm a libertarian with some liberal and some conservative agendas. I'm ultra-anti-socialism. Down with big government. Up with free trade. Pro-Class-Differentiation.

It's hard for younger people sometimes (yes, I'm in my early 20's, but I'm against the norm) to conceptualize conservative agendas--especially European Union liberals, as America is ultra-conservative in comparison. It's because they're still at the point in their lives where they haven't built up an apathy for their "fellow man" that comes with age. Young adults technically should be more forward-thinking, but generally they live in the present. They see the man on the corner who has no money and they stalwartly decide that they don't mind parting with a small portion of their small income a month to help him out. They don't think about the companies that'll relocate to India to avoid tax costs or when/if they start making decent money and Uncle Sam dips so far into their wallet he brings leather back out lodged under his fingernails.

I'm not saying liberalism is bad. It's a necessary thing to keep the rights of the people. Were it not for liberals, America'd no doubt be rampaging throughout the land claiming countries again, and the Bill of Rights could kiss its own ass goodbye.

What they don't take into consideration however is the economic future. They think the economy is in a slump now and cry out for action but they fail to see the big picture.

Marx's "perfect" idea of a utopia created through socialism. It's very pretty to think about. Just imagine, the government is replaced by the people, which care about nothing but each other. Everyone makes the same amount of money. Former hobos dine with former aristocrats. Everyone shares the wealth and is cared for and everything's great.

But here's the reality.

People don't like to share.

Take thirty hungry people. Put a single sack of beans in the middle. It's nice to think that they'll all approach it quietly and orderly, and then divide up the beans so that everyone can share. But in reality, a sack of beans doesn't go far. You split it among 30 people, and that means every person's going to get about 4 or 5 beans. That means everyone still is hungry, just a little less hungry. The reality is that the first one to the beans is going to either fight off all the people grabbing at the beans, or will lose it to someone stronger. The one who wins'll divide the beans among the people he likes and snub the people he doesn't, generously taking the most for himself. So 1 person'll be stuffed, 4-5 people'll be sated, maybe a few others'll just be a little less hungry, and then everyone else still has nothing.

Socialism turns into communism because people are greedy and when you have a lot of hands in a collective honey pot, someone's eventually gonna scoop out more than he deserves. I know I would. Because having a goal means you're making yourself into something unique, and better than the rest. Everyone has a goal, and if everyone's stuck making the same and doing the same, someone's gonna strike out and seek something better. It's the human condition.

That said, socialized healthcare can't work in a large population. There is a finite amount of resources, including doctors, including time. If everyone scrambles for the beans there'll be nothing left after a while. Epidemic is a threat, but a "what-if" shouldn't be an agenda for a massive economic structure overhaul, just minor tweaks.

The really good thing about the U.S. is that it offers the opportunity for self-improvement. A person can grow up in the gutter but make a good life for themselves with perserverance, hard work, and some skill. Awarding benefits to people who fail and can't pick themselves back up will only teach them that staying down is the easiest solution.

Just look at Welfare (my family used to be on it when I was a kid). The government supplies money to people who can't find jobs but who have families. But oftentimes the checks are slightly more than what a job may pay, and the people are given more money for having more children. If the person makes more than a set amount, Welfare cuts itself off and the person fails again, only to resume sucking Welfare's teat, because they have no time to work their way up to the point that they no longer need it.

Instead of giving out benefits we should be providing more opportunities to better ourselves and make ourselves independent. Instead of paying a Social Security tax I could be plugging that money into savings. If I die tomorrow, all the money I've put into S.S. goes nowhere. My family'll never see a thin dime of it. Providing more scholarships, paid internships, tax breaks on new business, work-study programs. That's how we make people pay for themselves, and then they'll be able to afford medical insurance because they're making money.

Sure, some people make more and some make less. But the opportunity to make more is still always a possibility for those who strive for it.


And that, to me, sounds much better than socialism.
 
They don't think about the companies that'll relocate to India to avoid tax costs or when/if they start making decent money and Uncle Sam dips so far into their wallet he brings leather back out lodged under his fingernails.
First of all, we already have some of the highest corporate income taxes in the world (I think only Japan and Germany are higher). Second, there's no evidence that higher taxes drive companies away. (Look at this graph, the healthiest economies are all over the map.)

Take thirty hungry people. Put a single sack of beans in the middle. It's nice to think that they'll all approach it quietly and orderly, and then divide up the beans so that everyone can share. But in reality, a sack of beans doesn't go far. You split it among 30 people, and that means every person's going to get about 4 or 5 beans. That means everyone still is hungry, just a little less hungry. The reality is that the first one to the beans is going to either fight off all the people grabbing at the beans, or will lose it to someone stronger. The one who wins'll divide the beans among the people he likes and snub the people he doesn't, generously taking the most for himself. So 1 person'll be stuffed, 4-5 people'll be sated, maybe a few others'll just be a little less hungry, and then everyone else still has nothing.
You're assuming that a) the economy is a zero sum game and b) we don't have enough resources in the US. German, Swedish, and Belgian workers are some of the most productive in the world because they have high taxes, and thus health care and free (or nearly free) higher education. And the US has a GDP of $43,000 per capita, more than any other country; if they can afford health care, we can too.

Socialism turns into communism because people are greedy and when you have a lot of hands in a collective honey pot, someone's eventually gonna scoop out more than he deserves.
First of all, I assume you're talking about the USSR's "communism," where the elite party members had everything and the populace had virtually nothing. Second, it's fairly easy to prevent this with strong sunshine laws.

Just look at Welfare (my family used to be on it when I was a kid). The government supplies money to people who can't find jobs but who have families. But oftentimes the checks are slightly more than what a job may pay, and the people are given more money for having more children. If the person makes more than a set amount, Welfare cuts itself off and the person fails again, only to resume sucking Welfare's teat, because they have no time to work their way up to the point that they no longer need it.
Which is exactly why welfare should be expanded.

One last thing I'd like to mention is the differences between the US and Japan/Sweden/Germany. First of all, we are one of the few developed countries in the world that does not guarantee higher education, which hurts our economic growth and further destroys class mobility. Second, we have policies, unlike the three others, that allow capital to move across borders without hampering, but not labor (a gross violation of not only simple justice, but Adam Smith's theories). Finally, we are the only country that is actively resisting the reduction of externalities (that is, economic costs, like polution, that are not payed by either the producer or consumer of a product), creating a grossly distorted economy.
 
About your comments on Marx; he never said that at any point in time we could move to the utopian non-exploitative society. He envisioned technology as being the driving factor enabling economic, social, and moral change. Which isn't far off. The greater the technology availlable to us, the easier living is, and the more generous the morality we can afford. Hunter-gather societies had little technology, so they could only afford to support a morality which was appropriate - ie as soon as you cease to be of value to the community, you are exposed and left to die. There was not enough slack in the society to support those people. However, if we had the technology to support that utopian society, with no competition for resources, then if people were still exploited, they probably would revolt. Revolutions in Marxism come about in order to bring economies, societies, and moral systems to a level appropriate to the technology, which essentially dictates what we can afford to give each other. If our level of technology cannot support that utopian world, (it can't), then the final conclusion of Marxism is still a long way off. I'm not the greatest expert on it, but that's what I've been taught.

Your analogy with the beans is inaccurate in many ways. Most of all, it assumes that if we share, we will have less than we need. I think what people think they need is a vital factor in choosing between socialism and non-socialism. If you think that the point of life is to strive higher and higher without limit, then yes, one person should take all of those beans. After all, they need all of them to live the best life possible. However, I think that a life based on possessing more than you possess is foolish, being after all logically impossible. No matter how much you have, you have never have more than you have. You can have more than you had, but once you've aquired more, you automatically need even more again. I think that there are certain objective markers that people need to have in regards to how much they think they need/want. Not to say that people should only strive for a certain amount and then stop - the values you have your sights on might be in practicallity unreachable. But at least you have the comfort of being closer to your goal, even if you're never likely to reach it. If your goal is to always have more, then you're never any closer than you were. Once you've established what you need for yourself, you can work out what you need in respects to society. I regard the tax that pays for other people's healthcare and children as the price that you pay for being able to live in a society.

As I see it, the flaw in Capitalism is inheritance. I can't reconcile Capitalism with anything other than a meritocracy, and inheritance defies meritocracy because it means that people with less natural talent can succeed to a higher level than expected by being given greater advantage from the start.

The main point. This is important!

You seem to be confusing aspiration with realism. Clearly, humans are capable to theoretically inventing morals to a much higher standard than they are capable of actually following. As you put it, we can aspire to be selfless, but we are selfish. However, if you think that it follows from that that we should be selfish, then you're mad! It is absolutely neccesary to have an aspiration to morality which is above what comes naturally. When people aspire to be very selfless, they act slightly selflessly and slightly selfishly. But how will people act if they only aspire to be selfish?

I agree that certain socialist countries, such as here in the UK, are prone to developing an apathy where people are happy to relly on the state. Yes, there are some people that do that. Yes, in the US, people on average have a far, far stronger work ethic. However, I don't think that that's a problem specific to socialism itself. If anything, (let's call it what it is), life-long lazyness is a product of the funny class thing we have going here. We don't expect people from certain backgrounds to do well, and guess what - they don't. And we do expect people from certain other backgrounds to do well, and guess what - they do. All you have to do is to look at people in education to see that there's some funny causal connections going on there. Anyway, that's not really applicable to the issue we're supposed to be discussing, which is whether we can criticise the US for being anti-socialist. Which hopefully I've gone part-way to explaining my opinion on.
 
I agree that certain socialist countries, such as here in the UK, are prone to developing an apathy where people are happy to relly on the state. Yes, there are some people that do that. Yes, in the US, people on average have a far, far stronger work ethic. However, I don't think that that's a problem specific to socialism itself. If anything, (let's call it what it is), life-long lazyness is a product of the funny class thing we have going here.

And, as I pointed out, several countries with high levels of welfare (Sweden, the Netherlands) have at least as high worker-productivity as the US.
 
Meh, people will always complain about goverments and policies. Has always been like that, Acient Greeks anyone? America just happens to be big and powerful, guess what happens. If people shouldn't put it down, you'd have to take away the democracy and freedom of speech, but even then it'd still happen (granted it would work and be eventually accepted).
 
@Stevo: HaHa, too late. I copy-pasted this whole thread into a copyrighting application, book deal is mine!

Seriously:
I find that most people's problem with america is usually with the most extreme stereotypes, the kind of people who walk into a room (theoretically) and shout "Im an american, fuck all you foreigners, this is the u-nited states. your faggoty-ass countries couldnt stand against us. God bless us. We are right, and you are a bunch of backwards fuckin' retards. Our way is the right way, so use it or we'll bitchslap you back to 1585(random year)."

Ahem. Thats just what I think.

And a little Off Topic, Irish people don't get it so easy either ya know. We do not live in thatch roof cottages in the countryside on a strict diet of potatoes and guinness throwin fiddles at passing leprecauns. But a lot of people seem to think we do.
 
I find that most people's problem with america is usually with the most extreme stereotypes, the kind of people who walk into a room (theoretically) and shout "Im an american, fuck all you foreigners, this is the u-nited states. your faggoty-ass countries couldnt stand against us. God bless us. We are right, and you are a bunch of backwards fuckin' retards. Our way is the right way, so use it or we'll bitchslap you back to 1585(random year)."

In raging against my government, I forgot about that. I'm one of the few people in the US that is proficient enough in a foreign language to get by in another country (admittedly, my vocabulary's not great, but I can get my point across). I went to Italy with my Latin class several years ago, and was amazed to find that only my teacher (who's been to Italy before) and my cousin and I (who know Spanish) could order lunch in Italian. No one even bothered to learn a few phrases like "dove e il bagno" (where is the bathroom) or "quanto costa" (how much is it?).
 
You know I stay informed on other countries and I surround myself with people that do, as well. When you do that I think you forget that everyone else you don't know still acts like a jackass.

Reading that reminded me of when I went to Mexico--and that's connected with America! My husband is fluent in Spanish and I am semi-proficient (I can't speak it so well but I can read it fine). We were able to get around town no problem.

But we saw some people who were unloading from a cruise from Texas. At the cab station one man said to a cabbie, "I want to go to the Jewelry District." I think the cabbie was new because he just stared blankly, obviously trying to figure out what the guy said. After a second the Texan repeated himself really loudly: "JEWELRY! I WANNA GO TO WHERE THE JEWELRY'S AT!" Then he started gesticulating at his rings and the street. The cabbie stared for a moment longer, seemingly dejected, then must have gotten the picture. The dude got in and was all "Dumb ass Mexicans".

All I could do was stare. Here, this man was in another country that wasn't proficient in English, and was calling the man who was providing him a service an idiot because he didn't instantly learn the language from a 2-second encounter.

Are Americans all like this man? I know I'm not--if I'm in another country I carry a pocket dictionary with me and I get a lesson or two. It's helpful when they know English but I'm not about to expect that of them.

Of course, when I was in So. Cal, most of the signs were in Spanish, my textbooks were half-Spanish, and sometimes Mexicans would be angry with Americans for not speaking the language.

I think there's jerks in every country, but perhaps there're more per capita in the U.S.?

Anyway we still shouldn't be judged as a whole. :'/
 
I wouldn't say that it's surprising that so many Americans don't even know the basics of a language when they travel to a foreign country.

People living in Europe laugh at this and think that Americans are self-centered dolts. However, they fail to realize that U.S.A (and Canada) are on their own continent. In Europe, you are constantly exposed to different languages - partially because of tourism, but moreso because the countries with those spoken languages are just a stone throw away.

Fact is, majority of people in the US just won't be exposed to anything other than English. Though there are ethnic communities in the U.S. (such as Mexican or Chinese), they are more frequently closed communities that don't associate much with outsiders. And save for having a real good school, chances are that language instruction will be limited to a year of obligatory Spanish in high school - which, of course, is promptly forgotten in the drunken hazy years of college. Now if you add to this the fact that most of these people will never travel outside of US (be it because it's costly or just because they don't feel like it), these people will never even get a chance to learn the basic sentences. They just won't need them.

And then when these people do decide to travel, they will appear as idiots to everyone around them. Since they haven't been exposed to other cultures and languages, they'll pretty much be like fish out of water. And for the most part, the only comments they'll be able to make will sum up to "Well, that's not how it's done in the U.S.A."
 

Thank you for viewing

HBGames is a leading amateur video game development forum and Discord server open to all ability levels. Feel free to have a nosey around!

Discord

Join our growing and active Discord server to discuss all aspects of game making in a relaxed environment. Join Us

Content

  • Our Games
  • Games in Development
  • Emoji by Twemoji.
    Top