non Americans: do you think we are violent?

[beastro]

Hmm I think it'd be more accurate to say that the US glorifies violence. It's well known that in the US it's: violence = fantastic, sex = terrible.

More like Americans are violence = as comfortable with it as entertainment as Europeans are with nudity, sex = something intensely private that shouldn't be put on display.

In the latter case, you are talk about the country that produces and consumes the most porn, but like sex in general, Americans just like it out of sight, something the randy Victorians would agree on.

Hmmm Americans tend to demonise sex. It goes beyond "not putting it on display", they tend to react badly to their children even being taught about sex (compared to European countries) for example. They have a very love/hate relationship with it.

Violence on the other hand, well their 2nd Amendment is about giving everyone the right to carry around weapons designed for killing, and their culture is very pro-war. I did hear about one strange thing recently though.

Apparently, despite being pro-war, when soldiers are killed in an American war it isn't headline news over there.

The demonization all ties into them valuing the act of sex as a powerful thing that can be both good and bad and is sacred, the issue comes from being very reactionary being caught up playing catch up with children as they grow up instead of raising them with this in mind that ties into their big problem with parenting and who they think should be raising their children.

The very essence of a weapon is it's lethality. Something called a weapon that doesn't have the ability to kill isn't one, but this goes back to their desire to have power invested in the people for good or ill.

Pro-war? Hardly. America has had a history of being very anti-military and very down on soldiers until the Second World War humanized them and Vietnam victimized them. Today's views on the military are a jumble of their ancient dislike for war combined with their love and value for the citizen soldier and their desire to make their lives be spent in vein and have them looked on as trash. What it comes down to is their desire to have war without sacrifice and war that's always as decisive as WWII was when that war was the exception to the rule. Americans are always very impatient and couldn't stand the long hard struggles that previous powers did to gain their position in the world like Britain spending a century struggling to contain France both globally and regionally and looking on wars as mere steps instead of having the world turn on dime after one.

What people today view as American pro-war mentality is simply their unrealistic desire to have one war settle one dispute and then have the matter be dropped so they don't have to spill anymore blood over it. It's silly and the biggest curse from both Vietnam and WWII where they learned bad lessons in both from both Victory Disease and being overly traumatized by war.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The very essence of a weapon is it's lethality. Something called a weapon that doesn't have the ability to kill isn't one,

Oh, there are arguments to be made there.

What people today view as American pro-war mentality is simply their unrealistic desire to have one war settle one dispute and then have the matter be dropped so they don't have to spill anymore blood over it. It's silly and the biggest curse from both Vietnam and WWII where they learned bad lessons in both from both Victory Disease and being overly traumatized by war.

Hmmm...that's an idea I've not seen raised before. There certainly seems to be some truth in it.

 

[beastro]

Oh we'll suck off American soldiers all day, as long as they're conforming to the badass warrior stereotype we so badly want them to be. The second veterans and soldiers form a committee about rape (male or otherwise) in the military we ignore them at best, at worst discharge them dishonorably. As soon as veterans want better medical care we create a lip service program that will only cover you if you live within 40 miles of a VA clinic AS THE CROW FUCKING FLIES. It honestly beggars belief the way we shaft our wounded soldiers.

As for sex education, I blame it on ludicrous "religious freedom" laws that get passed one after another in our more ignorant states. Honestly though the subject just makes me so mad that I can't even really discuss it in any reasonable way.

And that goes back to their deeper aversion to soldiers and the military. They don't want to look down on them as scum in public, but they still do it when they can get away with it that goes back to the near paranoia people had about the military and a would-be Napoleon taking over the country and plagued people's minds until the late 19th Century.

The Sex Ed is an overreaction and conflict where parents feel schools overreach their mandate while also expecting them to raise their children as they teach them, only they want them to raise them they way they want to, but are too lazy to do themselves.

 

[beastro]

Oh, there are arguments to be made there.

If a weapon doesn't kill well it isn't a very good weapon. The transition from melee weapons to firearms had less to do with firearms being more lethal than swords and arrows so much as it had to do with those items being terrible at killing people quickly and efficiently.

Hmmm...that's an idea I've not seen raised before. There certainly seems to be some truth in it.

Take a look at the the Second Hundred Years' War and think about Americans today. They'd want the Napoleonic Wars to happen a century sooner than they did rather than play the long, bloodly game of containing France like Britain did, making little gains here and there and accepting the losses that happened and moving on like losing the Colonies that became their country.

To the American psyche that's the old, dirty game the European powers played that they wanted nothing to do with and remained largely isolationist and unilateral towards until WWI. During WWI they got into the big power game but weren't that bloodied, then WWII where they did things big and turned the world on its head thinking they'd ended the old European game of realpolitik and building a new era in their own image only to have that order give way after 1990 to the old way of small colonial wars that don't change much short term but have to be played if you want to maintain global power into the 21st Century.

This also ties into their views of Empire where the European powers had physical ones while they detested them and preferred one built on economic grounds and free trade. Americans don't care enough to go around making a real Empire just as they have no desire to play the games that are required to maintain one, even their economic one as has been shown since the end of the Cold War.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Oh, there are arguments to be made there.

If a weapon doesn't kill well it isn't a very good weapon. The transition from melee weapons to firearms had less to do with firearms being more lethal than swords and arrows so much as it had to do with those items being terrible at killing people quickly and efficiently.

Well, firearms replaced bows because they required much less training.

But, anyway, I'd argue that a weapon doesn't need to kill to be a weapon, it needs to reduce the capability of the enemy to fight. Of course, the two can overlap, but, for example, an anti-tank mine that doesn't kill anyone, doesn't destroy the tank, but does ruin the tracks...I'd call that a weapon. An EMP which destroys systems, but causes no direct harm to anyone. Arguably, a computer virus is a weapon.

Similarly, a machine gun is designed to kill, yes, but is often used to pin enemy forces down. Lots of bullets, technically, do no harm to anyone, but they are still part of an attack.

Then, of course, there are less lethal weapons. Flashbang grenades weren't invented to kill people as such, but they were invented to help the SAS kill people.

 

[ExDeath730]

Oh please...I live in Brazil, we're in a constant civil war.

Our criminals are armed with freaking M16s and RPGs while the population is pro Gun Rights but the lefty government is against ( really there was a vote and the pro gun side won by a large margin, even so the government went ahead curbing our gun rights, nice "democracy", huh?), so we can't really defend ourselves, the police try it's best, but there's a lot of corruption in the force and they're usually armed with pistols and shotguns, at least they have good military level body armors, really...We're around so much violence that we think americans are "cute" and have it good, really, you guys are living the dream.

So nope, we don't think you guys are violent, the general opinion here is quite neutral actually, usually only the crazy marxists are pissed at you, and it's more because of their agenda against capitalism, etc... than anything you guys actually do.

 

[beastro]

Oh, there are arguments to be made there.

If a weapon doesn't kill well it isn't a very good weapon. The transition from melee weapons to firearms had less to do with firearms being more lethal than swords and arrows so much as it had to do with those items being terrible at killing people quickly and efficiently.

Well, firearms replaced bows because they required much less training.

But, anyway, I'd argue that a weapon doesn't need to kill to be a weapon, it needs to reduce the capability of the enemy to fight. Of course, the two can overlap, but, for example, an anti-tank mine that doesn't kill anyone, doesn't destroy the tank, but does ruin the tracks...I'd call that a weapon. An EMP which destroys systems, but causes no direct harm to anyone. Arguably, a computer virus is a weapon.

Similarly, a machine gun is designed to kill, yes, but is often used to pin enemy forces down. Lots of bullets, technically, do no harm to anyone, but they are still part of an attack.

Then, of course, there are less lethal weapons. Flashbang grenades weren't invented to kill people as such, but they were invented to help the SAS kill people.

Bullets also punch bigger holes in bodies for them to bleed out quicker. Things like sword fights where a person could live for hours and morally wound other opponents would be looked on as the apex of insanity by today's militaries.

The fact is something like a mine or a flash bang can capable of killing someone (the latter idiot SWAT sometimes find out like the one team that immolated a little girl with one) and simply because defensive can render them less effective doesn't mean that can't, not that that isn't the main intent of the weapon - the most effective way of killing a tank is killing the crew since a vehicle can is more easily repaired than the human body. Even things like rubber bullets and tazers have a body count, it's just that they've been chosen as "non-lethal weapons" because they're bad are killing, but they can and will kill if the circumstances are right.

EMP has never been used as it's liked to be portrayed because of how inefficient and easily countered it is (like the size of most pulses from nukes being smaller than the fireball produced by the device)

A virus is the best example of the more abstract angle you're getting at as they can't directly harm people while something like chemical weapons or your machine gun example are things that can do so very well but an enemies counter to them still debilitate and restrict their freedom of movement - the whole point why hide and get pinned down by machine guns is because they'd be mowed down if they didn't, just as why they'd wear a very uncomfortable and sight restricting mask to prevent gas from liquifying their lungs.

Weapons come down to causing harm and that goes back to a weapon being more a state of mind than anything else - a hardware store is harmless to you and me, but come the zombie apocalypse or one of us going homicidal they suddenly turn into a beautiful cache of implements of death. What one has to keep in mind is that combat is a very pragmatic situation humans find themselves in and the most effective way of causing the most harm to an enemy and prevent harm to yourself is to kill your foe, the quicker and more through the better, hence why we've gone from cavalrymen with arms covered in cuts and very few dead to precision guided munitions reducing the life expectancy of whole armies to a matter of hours.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Bullets also punch bigger holes in bodies for them to bleed out quicker.

That is an important point, yes.

The fact is something like a mine or a flash bang can capable of killing someone (the latter idiot SWAT sometimes find out like the one team that immolated a little girl with one) and simply because defensive can render them less effective doesn't mean that can't, not that that isn't the main intent of the weapon - the most effective way of killing a tank is killing the crew since a vehicle can is more easily repaired than the human body.

Well, yes, they are certainly dangerous, but I'd argue they are still weapons when not used to kill people.

A virus is the best example of the more abstract angle you're getting at as they can't directly harm people while something like chemical weapons or your machine gun example are things that can do so very well but an enemies counter to them still debilitate and restrict their freedom of movement - the whole point why hide and get pinned down by machine guns is because they'd be mowed down if they didn't, just as why they'd wear a very uncomfortable and sight restricting mask to prevent gas from liquifying their lungs.

True...though, gases that don't kill people have been used in wars. Before chlorine and mustard gas were used in WW1, tear gas was used, just very ineffectually (either freezing or being so dilute that the enemy didn't realise they were under attack from it). I'd argue that tear gas is a weapon when used in that way (providing it works).

 

[beastro]

Oh please...I live in Brazil, we're in a constant civil war.

Our criminals are armed with freaking M16s and RPGs while the population is pro Gun Rights but the lefty government is against ( really there was a vote and the pro gun side won by a large margin, even so the government went ahead curbing our gun rights, nice "democracy", huh?), so we can't really defend ourselves, the police try it's best, but there's a lot of corruption in the force and they're usually armed with pistols and shotguns, at least they have good military level body armors, really...We're around so much violence that we think americans are "cute" and have it good, really, you guys are living the dream.

This is what I was getting at in my original post. The bias towards Americans also ignores more common domestic issues like Britain's long tradition of barroom violence and other nations own problems like your own.

Someone else pointed out how loud and rude Americans are. That's the negative part of their very open and honest nature, that same honesty that impedes them hiding their problems and only making them larger than life in their media.... which gets seen by the rest of the world which then takes it at face value.

 

[beastro]

True...though, gases that don't kill people have been used in wars. Before chlorine and mustard gas were used in WW1, tear gas was used, just very ineffectually (either freezing or being so dilute that the enemy didn't realise they were under attack from it). I'd argue that tear gas is a weapon when used in that way (providing it works).

Tear gas was sidelined early because it's very bad killing, what it was originally employed to do. One could say the same thing about a baton being given to law enforcement because a cudgel takes more whacks to kill someone than more effective melee weapons. Again, it can kill given the right circumstances and the right victim.

Well, yes, they are certainly dangerous, but I'd argue they are still weapons when not used to kill people.

This is where I somewhat conceded to your point near the end of my post but highlighted the face that weapons are meant to cause harm and the best way to win a fight isn't just a cause harm but to kill someone as quick and decisively as possible.

 

[Quazimofo]

Canadian here.

In general, on a individual basis, I would say no, you aren't more violent than anyone else.

BUT

There are certainly some places I will never go to due to crime rate, Chicago and Detroit for example.

And I really don't get why some of you are so resilient to be able to have a gun.

It's worth noting that even in cities with high crime rate, particularly larger cities like Chicago, how dangerous it is is almost entirely dependent on where you go. For example, I've lived in chicago for almost 19 years (born and raised, out of state for college) and have never been robbed, assaulted, mugged, kidnapped etc. This is of course do to where I live (lincoln square is a fairly wealthy neighborhood. I wouldn't call it all rich people by a long shot, but far from dilapidated,) but even on the trains the worst I've witnessed is a heated argument within a group of girls and someone getting arrested for underage drinking; and I've gone the farthest you can go in every direction.

 

[Charli]

Errr, the only stereotype I have of you guys is 'boisterous' like...your idea of extroverted goes 3 notches over the heads of extroverted in Europe.

But violent? No... not come across that idealism much... maybe in movies? But I mean only idiots take movies as a 1:1 reflection of reality.

Oh and the public aversion to sex...thing. That always tickles me... like my US friends are obsessed with talking about it in muted whispers and romantics, but when it comes to it being a 'casual thing' and just kind of there and in your face the idea is truly scandalous. That always struck me as backwards. It's like you exalt sex but hide it behind golden embossed doors with a sign saying 'DON'T OPEN' as if to provoke the inner immaturity inherent in humanity.

It fascinates me.

 

[Corran006]

this is a question mainly directed to Europeans but also a bit to Africans and Asians.

Do you think that the United states are violent or scary and crime ridden? I know globally we look good, but compared to rich European countries we may seem like the ghetto. also most of Asia and some of Africa has lower murder rates. The only European countries I can think of with more murder are more corrupt or Russia.

I know my friend from ghana thinks were these crazy barbaric drug addicted violent people. Is that sentiment common?

Violence in the us is half what it was 20 years ago, but in the hood gunshots are a fact of life.

Simply, what do all you guys think of American violence? Are we violent? A lot of our music talks about shooting down your enemies.

Is this just the way it is in a county that was born from violent revolution.

Bonus: also interested in the perspective of other Americans (Mexicans, Chilean) and especially Canada since you guys seem like the cousin who succeeds better at everything.

Edit: plus there's our tendency to invade anyone that can make us a profit for vague reasons as long as the world doesn't all denounce if.

Yes you are, you have way too many death by guns and even people killed by police is way higher then it should be. I am sure you will hate me for saying this but its time to give up the culture of guns.

I understand The U.S is not the highest but if you look at the more richer well off nations compared to the poor ones who are destitute its far far to high.

U.S needs to address its racism, now of course we have it in Canada her as well but i think its a huge factor in all the police shooting deaths.

I don't think Movies or music or video games are the cause either we have those all around the world but the idea that everyone has a right to right to bear arms is insularity. It is just far too easy for anyone to get a weapon people are going to use them. I am aware that criminals don't care about laws but the amount of guns and ease of access to them is not helping matters.

- Canada.

 

[kyp275]

it's rather amusing how many in this thread wrap themselves in the clothes of moral superiority while using the logical reasoning long used by racists and bigots to justify their views on those "vile, barbaric Americans".

But please do carry on.

 

[Lightspeaker]

Yes you are all evil monsters that we British foolishly released upon the world but the day soon approaches when we take back our colonies with musket and impractical hat!.

Sorry but no, as a fellow Brit I refuse to allow our country to take responsibility for America being created.

The French being at war with us was the reason we couldn't prevent America from being formed. Plus its another thing we can pin on the French as their fault. So I blame France. ;P

Unless you are the secret monarch of the USA who rules behind the scenes and the rest of your class was part of your high council, then that guy is a twat and had no right to speak to you like that.

Honestly I'm surprised that a Brit had the crassness to go up to someone and insult them like that. Didn't they get the memo that you're supposed to be strictly polite to the people you hate and insult your closest friends? That's the done thing.

Then again...it WAS in London. That place is like a country unto itself.

What people today view as American pro-war mentality is simply their unrealistic desire to have one war settle one dispute and then have the matter be dropped so they don't have to spill anymore blood over it. It's silly and the biggest curse from both Vietnam and WWII where they learned bad lessons in both from both Victory Disease and being overly traumatized by war.

I've heard this one brought up before and its always made a lot of sense to me.

Unlike a lot of other countries, to America WWII was a "slam-dunk" (I read that somewhere ages ago). The US itself was divorced from any real threat to their homeland. The Empire of Japan got smashed, Russia took gigantic losses, the entirety of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East was wrecked and Britain had to effectively trade away the Empire for victory, France had been occupied, Italy suffered and Germany was literally broken in half. But America didn't suffer in the same way. So it had something of a warped perspective on WWII compared to everywhere else.

And because of that, and because of WWII being the war that really brought the US onto the stage as the major world power it is today, the US is constantly looking for wars to be similar "slam-dunks". And is ever surprised when they don't turn out that way.

 

[Parasondox]

it's rather amusing how many in this thread wrap themselves in the clothes of moral superiority while using the logical reasoning long used by racists and bigots to justify their views on those "vile, barbaric Americans".

But please do carry on.

Or just that the question was direct about whether the US was seen as violent or not. If the same question was asked about the UK, I would answer, "Fuck yeah". In the city/suburbs hearing sirens every 10 mins you would think we were the crime capital of Europe. Then there are football hooliganism who are both violent and racist (see Chelsea Paris story). Also the drinking fights that happens when people decide to binge drink and don't know when to stop. And lastly, the UK history itself with fights between the Irish, the Scottish, people from Liverpool, the French, the Spanish, the world pretty much. Yeah, violence is in UK's history and the US may have taken some of that from their parents.

People here are also admitting their own nations faults, so it's not all, "vile barbaric Americans". Careful how you use the terms "racist" and "bigot", now.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Or just that the question was direct about whether the US was seen as violent or not. If the same question was asked about the UK, I would answer, "Fuck yeah". In the city/suburbs hearing sirens every 10 mins you would think we were the crime capital of Europe.

Not to mention that Midsomer place that has all those increasingly weird and elaborate murders.

 

[Parasondox]

Or just that the question was direct about whether the US was seen as violent or not. If the same question was asked about the UK, I would answer, "Fuck yeah". In the city/suburbs hearing sirens every 10 mins you would think we were the crime capital of Europe.

Not to mention that Midsomer place that has all those increasingly weird and elaborate murders.

Yeah that place is a no go zone. I do not know why people still choose to go to Midsomer. Damn Brits!!

 

[Patrick Buck]

I think entitlement culture in america is a bit more widespread, so when people don't get what they want, or complain they can't get what they want they get bitchy faster than others. It's a problem in britain too, but I don't think it's so widespread.

 

[MoltenSilver]

Canadian here

I remember when I was growing up there was this big stereotype that America was the land of violence and that you shouldn't cross the border without your bullet-proof everything, but the attitude seems to have shifted to 'You will probably be fine in most of the bigger cities', though there is still a lot of fear and revulsion at stepping in to any 'small town' area that are seen as bastions of violence fetishism, gun nuts, racism, and homophobia.

Which incredibly ironic as, while I can't say whether that's true or not of American small towns, it is definitely true that Canadian small towns (and even some of the middle ones) are chief exporters of concentrated stupid. My sibling moved to a town called Grand Prairie (Pop ~55,000) for work and is pretty much on the verge of a mental breakdown being among the racist, sexist, homophobic attitudes that seem to permeate everyone they've met there. Rural Canada is also every bit as obsessed with guns as America, but I've never seen guns be 'worshipped' or 'lionized' to the same extent; they're just "that tool you need to have so coyotes don't kill your family and livelihood".

In terms of fearing America, I actually fear the influence of American corporations about a billion times more than I fear 'would I be killed if I got kidnapped and dumped in an American small town'.