[Discussion] Why are Americans hated so much these days?

Originally Posted by Darth Yoshi

American standards. The GOP has been so successful at dictating political discourse for so long that those standards are noticeably more conservative than pretty much every other country in the world that isn't a third world craphole or a dictatorship.

You really can't say that either CNN or MSNBC are conservatively-inclined. While certainly not as biased as Fox, MSNBC's lineup is notably progressively-slanted. The New York Times, the Washington Post, and Politico have all reported on this, and how its programming is becoming increasingly left-wing. CNN, though generally balanced, is also known to be far a bit liberal. For example, a study conducted by Harvard University exposed that during the 2008 presidential election, 41% of stories concerning Republican candidates, policies, or ideas were somehow negative. In contrast, only 8% of the coverage of Barack Obama was negative.

CNN and MSNBC are somewhat biased, yes, but not to the right.

Originally Posted by Dipper

You really can't say that either CNN or MSNBC are conservatively-inclined. While certainly not as biased as Fox, MSNBC's lineup is notably progressively-slanted. The New York Times, the Washington Post, and Politico have all reported on this, and how its programming is becoming increasingly left-wing. CNN, though generally balanced, is also known to be far a bit liberal. For example, a study conducted by Harvard University exposed that during the 2008 presidential election, 41% of stories concerning Republican candidates, policies, or ideas were somehow negative. In contrast, only 8% of the coverage of Barack Obama was negative.

CNN and MSNBC are somewhat biased, yes, but not to the right.

That's a partisan way of looking at things, and exactly the problem I was talking about. Just because coverage happens to be favorable towards Democrats doesn't mean the media is progressive or liberal, because all the Democrats are is "not the GOP." The fact of the matter is that Obama has upheld and expanded on the authoritarian measures enacted during the Bush years, and the amount of coverage that's gotten from the mainstream media is pathetic, if that. They aren't really questioning the government in any meaningful fashion, and not doing so is conservative.

Originally Posted by Iron Man

In order to remove the danger of scalding, McDonald's would have to serve cold coffee. And they could try, but no-one would order it

Oh, I'm not sure about that...

Originally Posted by OneHungryHippo

-I hate the "Most Americans are fat" stereotype. Especially since I have been dealing with an underweight problem for the last few years.

One third of Americans are obese and a larger number are at least over weight. Pretty sure that the "American's are fat" thing is completely justified.

-I hate our anti-religion bias that's been going around lately, it's alright to not have a religion or to not be religious, but it's not okay to say that the religious are fools for believing what they do. I know that is also outside of America, but still.

About 80% of Americans claim to be Christian. There is no way that America has an "anti-religion bias". And yes, people have the right to say religious people are delusional fools, just like religious people have the right to say atheists will burn in hell.

And apparently there are some American associations that have a huge problem with gay people. You don't see this in Europe or Canada.

Originally Posted by Link the Zora

And apparently there are some American associations that have a huge problem with gay people. You don't see this in Europe or Canada.

In fairness there are bigoted groups here in Britain, they just don't have any real influence/balls.

Originally Posted by HIKER Blak

In fairness there are bigoted groups here in Britain, they just don't have any real influence/balls.

Actually, far-right groups have quite a bit more influence in the UK. For example, there's no equivalent to the BNP over here, in terms of power.

The BNP have zero power. They're hated by the vast majority of the public and universally by the media. Their vote stems from the dedicated nationalists (to whom every country possesses) and thick people who buy into their fear-mongering, populist dogma. They'll never inform any governmental decision.

Now if you look at mainstream politics, there is a clear division between the social attitudes of right-wing America and right-wing UK. Our Conservatives are the ones bringing in legislation for gay marriage and generally being supportive of minorities. That's because these aren't issues for us. We have what Cameron calls a 'muscular liberalism' which, in my eyes, is the Conservatives embracing a moderate social position and embracing traditional values without an outright rejection of progressive beliefs.

America hasn't achieved this yet. On certain issues, for example LGBT rights, mainstream Republicans display bigotry that actually surpasses that of even the most strident right wingers in the UK. The closest match to Romney's views on LGBT rights is probably that of Nick Griffin - the leader of the BNP - who shares the similarity in that they both refuse civil partnerships and support the notion of DADT.

America has the kind of bigotry in its mainstream that many other countries only have in powerless minorities.

Originally Posted by Dipper

Actually, far-right groups have quite a bit more influence in the UK. For example, there's no equivalent to the BNP over here, in terms of power.

Republican Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
George W. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fox News Channel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rush Limbaugh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Uh, thanks though.

Originally Posted by Sailor Moon

Republican Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
George W. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fox News Channel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rush Limbaugh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Uh, thanks though.

Sorry, I should have defined what I meant by "far-right". While certain groups within the Republican Party certainly come close to the likes of the British National Party, none of them are as outwardly hateful or at least open about their nativist, white supremacist, and anti-immigrant beliefs. While a very prominent minority of Republicans would likely agree with many (if not most) of the BNP's policies, there exist no groups in the United States of both that much hate and that much influence.

Far-right organized political parties do exist in this country, but (perhaps due to American party rigidity, if nothing else) none of these groups hold any seats in federal or local governments. The British National Party, however, holds several seats in various local English councils, and even two seats in the European Parliament.

The Republican Party of the United States is very conservative, especially in comparison to most European or Canadian political groups, but it shouldn't be considered a "far-right" group. That label, which usually refers to groups which (according to Oliver Waoshinsky) advocate supremacy based on innate, unchangeable characteristics such as race or sex. As mentioned, very many American conservatives (many of which watch Fox News, listen to Limbaugh, attend Tea Party rallies, and vote Republican) would likely agree with some general views held by legitimate far-right organizations such as the Taliban, Ku Klux Klan, or Japanese Zaitokukai, but by and large mainstream conservative politics in the US should not be considered "far-right".

The BNP lost all of its council seats and thus has absolutely no power in our system at a national or local level.

Originally Posted by interestingdrug

The BNP lost all of its council seats and thus has absolutely no power in our system at a national or local level.

The BNP has a seat in the Lancashire County Council, in the Charnwood Disctric Council, and in the Pendle Disctric Concil. And in 2009, on an international level, Andrew Brons and Nick Griffin of the far-right party were elected to the European Parliament. I don't know how often its elections are, but I can't find any information to suggest that these two seats now belong to another party.

Originally Posted by Dipper

The BNP has a seat in the Lancashire County Council, in the Charnwood Disctric Council, and in the Pendle Disctric Concil. And in 2009, on an international level, Andrew Brons and Nick Griffin of the far-right party were elected to the European Parliament. I don't know how often its elections are, but I can't find any information to suggest that these two seats now belong to another party.

They have one seat in a council, and you're claiming they have influence? That's like claiming the Constitution Party has influence because they got a candidate elected to Montana's lower house once; it's an absurd statement.

And the reason the BNP got seats in the EU parliament was because most Brits don't care about the EU parliament; turnout for the most recent EU parliament election was 34%. When you have such a small turnout, obviously the crazies are going to stand out more.

The local elections that were held this year didn't contest every position. Every contested area the BNP lost. Neither of those current seats were contested this year. I suppose you're right technically but it's quite evident that the BNP have a miniscule amount of support and won't hold on to those seats.

Nobody cares about meps lol. But they were voted in a while ago and would also not win a vote today.

You need to understand that when the BNP won all of these things we were under an inadequate government and there was lots of political tension. People who voted for them then have probably either returned to Labour or gone to UKIP. They were a protest vote. The National Front has never been politically successful and the BNP will quickly return to mediocrity. They're a poor example and a red herring.

Originally Posted by Silver

And the reason the BNP got seats in the EU parliament was because most Brits don't care about the EU parliament; turnout for the most recent EU parliament election was 34%. When you have such a small turnout, obviously the crazies are going to stand out more.

Voter turnout for the 2010 US congressional election was only marginally higher at 40%, and was quite similar. Due to the dismally low turnout, failing economy, youth apathy, and influence by billionaire-backed political groups such as the Tea Party, the Republican party managed to obtain a majority in the House of Representatives, and has since then done everything in its power to block most pieces of federal legislation due to pointless partisanship. The situation was much like the one described by interestingdrug of Britain's 2008 parliamentary election. And by having any political seat, a party has some influence.

Personally, I think that the idea of basing all politics and the entire left-right paradigm off of the standards of Europe and Canada is extremely flawed. In terms of modern global politics, the Republican Party is dead-center. Only twenty-four nations allow full reproductive rights to women, and homosexuality is illegal in seventy-seven countries. On that note, gay marriage is only fully legal in twelve nations. Many countries, including Bahrain, Fiji, Malaysia, and arguably Israel enforce segregation by ethnicity. And in many parts of the world, the freedom of speech is still an unattainable luxury. Saying then that the Republican party is far-right is unfounded, and using the societal norms of a relatively small group of people to judge all global politics is small-minded and laughable.

Look, if you want to argue technicalities, and you are, okay. Yeah sure, the Republican Party isn't that bad. I mean, they don't openly advocate killing the Jews, putting black people on the back of the bus, shooting illegal immigrants or having gay people stoned to death. They're not advocating or installing a dictatorship based off a radical Christian agenda.

They're only arguing that people who look Hispanic should have to present identification at random stops. They're only arguing that openly gay people should serve in the military. They're only allowing children to be indoctrinated into creationist idiocy and learning anti-evolution propaganda. They're only forcing young female students to take pregnancy tests or undergo invasive procedures before terminating a pregnancy. This isn't even the bottom of the ♥♥♥♥ing barrel here. I can go all bloody day talking about the sheer lunacy of these people.

So yeah, you're right, they might not be as openly offensive to the world as Alexander Lukashenko who on occasion praises Hitler or insults foreign ministers because they're homosexual, but how does this make them any less ♥♥♥♥ing crazy? It's still America, supposed leader of the free world, supposed promised land to all the downtrodden. God forbid we have expectations or standards that match the standards of the rest of the western world, you know, which isn't ludicrously corrupt, or ruled by autocrats, tin-pot dictators, or a radically ideological regime.

But they're still advocating homosexuals remain in the closet. They're still spreading lies and propaganda concerning evolution. They're still advocating more money is spent on prisons than on education, which happens with an alarming frequency in most states. They're still arguing people be shot for their crimes. They're still saying that people, innocent people who just want to have a better life, should be deported en masse or that a wall be built to block them out of the nation.

But they are still people who are totally fine with infringing upon the rights of others despite when someone hints at doing so to them they literally get up in arms. So they're still hard-right, even by world standards. Because even Africa is more socially advanced than America.