Why smoking remains so prevalent. I'm sure it's not a majority that smokes, but it is massively more common anywhere I've been in Europe than here in the US. I live in a fairly large city and I will go many days in a row without seeing a single person smoking.
I just don't really get it. It's gross, it smells, it ruins your teeth and your lungs, and it's expensive. Why do it?
In my case, and this the US, I had friends who smoked.
I was curious, bummed one, and once I got past the coughing I really enjoyed the effects, that said by the time you no longer get the "high" (for lack of a better word) you're addicted.
Fast forward 20 years and I'm still trying to quit.
Quit for 5 years cold turkey, but... Shit went down in almost every facet of my life, and I went back.
But I'm down to about a pack a week.
One in the morning, one on the road to work, and one or two during my shift if time allows.
Just need to kick it for good.
Edit: To correct typos
Hey dude, I believe in you. You can do it again and do it for good! Don't give up.
It's not necessarily that smoking is a larger percentage of the population. It varies, but stats show a similar percentage more or less... it is a bit higher in Europe on average than in the US on average — but both places are large with varied amounts of smokers. It's more that people are outside near each other more in Europe.
In Europe they're walking down the street, sitting outdoors at cafes, hanging out in the city center, etc. Whereas in the US, people are often driving from place to place to go to a destination, so you don't notice the smoking as much. Plus, smoking sections are a concept that exists in the US (even outside), whereas they don't in Europe. Thankfully, in much of the US and EU, most places are finally non-smoking indoors now.
This is a gross overgeneralization. It's different in different parts of the US and different parts of Europe, of course.
(FWIW: I totally agree with you that it's gross. And it's far too common to run into in Europe.)
Why smoking remains so prevalent. I’m sure it’s not a majority that smokes, but it is massively more common anywhere I’ve been in Europe than here in the US. I live in a fairly large city and I will go many days in a row without seeing a single person smoking.
I just don’t really get it. It’s gross, it smells, it ruins your teeth and your lungs, and it’s expensive. Why do it?
this is the same in asia. sometimes people don't even smoke, they just smoke because their boss does it and they do it to fit in at work. it's really awful.
Not the case in northern Europe by the way. I'm just as shocked when visiting countries in mid/south Europe
It’s way too broad a comparison. In my North Eastern US state, encountering smokers isn’t that common because it’s illegal inside and anywhere near a door. So to smoke, you have to pretty much hide. And it’s become uncommon enough, smoking makes you a pariah so people seem to be breaking the official rules less often as time goes on due to social pressure more than fear of enforcement. We were out at a bar the other day and a guy smoked on the patio and it very much stood out. You could feel the vitriol for this guy in the atmosphere and after a minute he walked in to the parking lot looking embarrassed. Not that long ago a waitress would have brought him an ash tray.
But go to Kentucky, there’s no rules about smoking anywhere. Last time I was there, we went to a grocery store with an ashtray between isles. Every building we went in to smelled like the 80s.
These are both the USA. And then in Europe, you do have countries like Bulgaria, Turkey, and Greece where more than 25% of the country smokes, which is higher than anywhere in the US. But then you have Sweden with only 6% and Norway with 7% which is a little bit better than anywhere in the US.
It really depends on the area, in some places smoking isnt really normalized anymore, in some places its the norm
In the USA less than 9% of the population smokes now. It's probably around ~7% at this point. It's crazy that we keep putting out laws like it's a massive issue. The reality is alcoholism is way worse than it's ever been yet it's still allowed to advertise on the TV and they can sell fruity flavors...but think of the children when it comes to tobacco...
I'm hesitant to spin valid concerns about alcohol into de-vilification of smoking. They are both vices, both unhealthy, both dangerous to the user and those around them for different reasons.
So yeah, it's valid to say we ignore the dangers of alcohol. But also yes, we should "think of the children" when it comes to tobacco.
What kid is picking up coffin nails these days? They vape or drink. It's probably why the FDA dropped deeming regulations when the cigar manufacturers went after them, no kid is smoking a $10 cigar.
That is threadbare justification for deregulation of something we know has basically entirely negative effects and absolutely is something that kids have historically done.
Kids' habits are fickle and unpredictable. Removing barriers to destructive behavior simply because they don't do that behavior as often anymore (the current regulations seem to work??) makes no sense.
The issue is they're not just leaving them in place, they're adding more regulations, while ignoring alcohol. More people are alcoholics now than ever, and everyone is completely fine with it, but smoking is taboo and "omg think of the children".
But... It's still not bad that those smoking regulations are being put in place.
It weakens the argument for additional alcohol regulation when you keep insisting that the regulations being put on another similar vice are pointless.
How do you figure? Those of us who enjoy cigars/pipe tobacco/snuff are basically seeing our vices disappear because "think of the children". Small makers are being forced to close because of the regulations on cigs. All while alcohol is completely allowed to do what it wants.
The argument works exactly the same the other way. Your rationale is based on your own preferences.
In a vacuum both tobacco and alcohol are destructive vices with no real discernible objective "benefits" to larger society. The argument against alcohol is exactly the same as the one against tobacco products. They harm the user and potentially those around them.
I'm not saying that tobacco should be further regulated while alcohol is not. But I am saying that the rationale for alcohol regulation is ultimately based on a desire to limit destructive behavior, which is the same rationale for limits on tobacco. You cannot effectively argue for deregulation of tobacco while arguing for increased regulation of alcohol. They are two sides of the same coin.
I think that's what you are missing here. I'm not arguing for more regulation on alcohol. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of it all. How alcohol is completely overlooked by society but tobacco is this taboo thing now.
Well, the U.S. consumes a significant amount less alcohol than most European countries. So with both vices, Europe is doing worse than the U.S.
Sure but both countries are pushing tobacco laws like mad, while not touching alcohol.
It's literally prohibition all over again...
I'm one for letting people enjoy whatever vice they want, even if it's hard drugs, but only because I know prohibition doesn't work. We shouldn't be telling adults what they can and cannot enjoy
Cigarettes are much worse for everyone around you than alcohol. Passive smoking is pretty dangerous and the main reason why so many laws exist against smoking in public places.
No it is not, the 2nd hand studies where flawed heavily. Smoking is bad for you period, but second hand smoke is as bad for you as sitting in traffic. Alcohol is bad for people around you as well, lots of DUIs were people are harmed and killed because of it.
To an extent, I see where you're coming from, but if we keep cigarettes legal, most of the additives need to go. There's no need to put tar and acytone in a cigarette.
They don't put those things in cigs. It's a by product of burning tobacco. Those lists of whats in a cigarette are bullshit, it's just the chemical reaction of burning something.
There are laws against smoking in public places and cigarettes are expensive. Those who smoke are in it for themselves, not a European thing.
It's definitly a thing in some places. I travel a lot between Switzerland and Germany and the difference in how much public smoking there is, is quite extreme.
I'm not at a level of expertise where I can say for sure how much of an effect they've had, but part of the resolution of that lawsuit in the US where it was determined that the tobacco industry knew tobacco was addictive and caused cancer was that the industry had to establish a fund that was earmarked for anti-smoking advertisements. Those commercials by the Truth Initiative warning kids about the dangers of nicotine? At least partially funded by big tobacco.
Why do they not want to go bankrupt from major health issues?
I was listening a podcast about cancer patient in France.
One talk was about the fact that the surgeon was planning on removing the breast tumor AND do the reconstruction directly after.
Except that by doing that the operation would have cost more than what the national social security covers, so it meant a big premium for the patient.
The "big" premium they were taking about was 600€ which is obviously outrageous. To make a cancer patient spend this much money on a life saving procedure.
The "big" premium they were taking about was 600€ which is obviously outrageous. To make a cancer patient spend this much money on a life saving procedure.
European here: I agree with this being outrageous. It's not about the money, it's about being a civilised society.
Now hospital parking on the other hand...
We do have some steep copayments for some treatments as well. For example, if I had to go to the hospital for a month I'd have to pay about 1000 EUR myself.
I was in the hospital for an outpatient procedure a couple of years ago here in the U.S. So not even overnight. I have good insurance. It cost me $2500.
I'm q
If I had to go into the hospital for a month, I truly would rather kill myself than have that shit looming over my for the rest of my life.
The trick is: Just don't pay these fuckers, what are they going to do? Show up and kill you?
Maybe you get sued, but maybe they don't even bother because it's not worth the cost of lawyers.
Either way, money isn't worth dying for, even in a fucked up dystopian system.
Except now you can’t buy a house or get a loan on a car because you have this massive outstanding debt…
Jokes on them I wouldn't be able to buy a house or car that requires a loan anyways.
Beats dying.
Ouch, way to punch below the belt lol
I think that amount is way too high. Nowadays I could afford it without problems, but a few years back spending some time in hospital would've messed up my budget.
I might be fine with paying for elective procedures - but hospital stays for other reasons should be covered by healthcare.
I agree it should all be free for non-elective procedures, but that's pretty much the cost of a few hours at an American hospital. The fact I thought you were being sarcastic and were not really reinforces how messed up our healthcare system is
hospital for a month I'd have to pay about 1000 EUR myself.
300 here.
Depends on the country. There are countries where everything is covered.
Monarchy. It's the 21st Century and y'all still pay people to live a lavish lifestyle because they are distantly related to some warlord from the 9th century
Then again, the people in all countries pay for the lifestyle of the politicians... in addition to the bribes they get for deciding in favor of whichever corporate and/or rich person needs a specific law passed or vetoed.
At least the monarchs do what you pay them for .... entertain you.
The King in the UK was caught with briefcases full of money declared as a 'donation'. He has also interfered in our politics including encouraging the government to buy ineffective homeopathic 'medicines'. They have also stopped the conviction of serious sex crimes royals have committed. Because the police get the power granted by royalty and can't persecute them.
At least we can vote the politicians out. Fuck monarchies.
Politicians don't do shit in America. Corporations govern the country and you can't vote them out.
Your right.
I don't want my tax dollars paying for politicans either.
I would be fine with it, if they were not allowed any other incomes during the time they get payed by the people.
Oh and of course they should be forced to do their jobs. If they don't fully attend sessions, cut their pay.
Deswegen sind die ja auch nicht in der EU
Lustig, wie jetzt im Bezug auf das Mem sowohl Norwegen als auch Großbritannien nicht in der EU sind.
Nowhere in the question does it specify EU countries. It simply says European.
You're taking this too serious.
I'm referencing crane driver Ronny in Norway ("Kranplätze müssen verdichtet sein!" : crane parking needs to be condensed (ground)), a reality TV icon in German language online communities and because the quote and context applies to both Norway and the UK which are both European, but not EU countries (that's relevant because that's part of the referenced joke), I posted that comment.
Neither does your comment. So pointing out that "y'all" in this instance is not actually meant to be taken literally is worth pointing out.
Specific to Germany, but when a second cashier opens up, it's a first come first serve rush for it, rather than letting the person next inline at the original cashier take the first spot in the new one.
Completely agree. I am German and it's utterly ridiculous.
Demanding to have another cashier is so rude yet so many do it all the time.
Oh my god I love this. Let the chaos begin
The Brits would never.
Queuing is a national pastime.
When I visit, I looooooove the civilized queues, but I can’t for the life of me understand why the slow lane on escalators is on the right (like you might find in big American cities) instead of the left (like you might find on a British highway).
Hun barbarism! Do Germans not know how to queue?
They do not
From what I heard about queueing practices in Eastern Europe and Northern Asia, no, not at all. For example, a long-time queue doesn't need people, it just needs some belongings queued.
German here, it's slowly getting better. Slowly.
I belong to neither of these groups. But here goes it.
Europe: when ordering water, I have to specify for it not to have gas (non-carbonated). Also in places like Germany, people drink those before playing football. I don’t understand how you do it or even like it that way.
People in electric scooters are out of control. Specially in Spain. They’re the most egregious when it comes to disrespecting pedestrian crosswalks, dangerous overtaking in bike lanes and all around assholeness. You shouldn’t ride your fucking patinete in a train station crowded with people.
— —-
People from the US: Your tipping culture is out of control. It’s good for outstanding service on certain scenarios. But not for handing me takeout or pulling out a foamy beer from a cooler.
Also , don’t tell newly-aquatinted people from the south that you’re not religious. They’ll try to tell you it’s their duty to save your soul and try to make you go to their religious services, which antagonizes them if you try to set boundaries on your personal beliefs.
Btw. I still like you both.
Europe: when ordering water, I have to specify for it not to have gas (non-carbonated). Also in places like Germany, people drink those before playing football. I don’t understand how you do it or even like it that way.
I like the taste of TV static. Sue me!
Dude I love seltzer. Especially fruit-flavored seltzer…but club soda is pretty good too. I don’t really like unflavored seltzer though, but it depends on a lot…the brand, the bottle, whether or not there’s a straw…a lot of variance in the bubbles.
Definitely! The water flavor by itself is very important, though I've noticed that the carbonation process masks slightly bad flavors pretty well. I make my own seltzer with tap water which is pretty good here luckily :)
One I love is Apfelschorle - apple juice with seltzer. A little juice goes a long way!
How do you make your seltzer? Soda stream or some other contraption?
Do you use “apple juice” or do you like…make ice cubes out of a can of concentrate and throw a cube into a homemade bottle of seltzer?
Soda stream, yep!
And it's literally just one part apple juice to like three parts seltzer, both mixed in a glass of jug. No ice cubes or anything :)
American here, I saw a tip jar for the cashiers in a flea market yesterday. I completely agree, it's out of control. It would be great if employers would just pay their employees properly instead of asking customers to subsidize wages.
No ice in their water or soda
No refills on fountain drinks
These are the things that stood out to me whenever I have visited.
I spent a good while in Berlin once and one of my favorite restaurants was this Australian themed place by the IMAX theater just because I could get a nice big Diet Coke with ice in it. Their kangaroo sandwich also wasn’t half bad.
We're not getting refills anyway, I'd rather not have 80% ice with a bit of soda
The process of a soda fountain makes already it cold.
Ice is completely pointless and without it you don't need refills
Ice keeps the soda cold throughout your meal.
In Europe my soda was often pretty close to room temperature by the time my food arrived. Not great if you like your beverages “ice cold”. But I get the impression Europeans don’t like their drinks as cold as we do in the US to begin with.
We also use larger glassware in the US, which offsets much of the volume displaced by ice.
So no, ice is not “completely pointless”, it’s just a cultural difference 🙂
larger glassware
Thinking of a typical US fast food soda cup: understatement. For comparison, a German McDonald's "Large" (the largest available) is 0.5 liters (17 oz). In the US, a "Medium" is 18 oz (0.53 l) or 21 oz (0.62 l) depending on who you ask, and, it goes to 30 (0.89 l) or 32 oz (0.95 l). And I've seen complaints that Wendy's shrank their large from 40 oz (1.18 l) to 35 oz (1.04 l). That's not a cup, that's a bucket!
A sit down restaurant in Europe will typically have soft drink serving sizes from 0.2 to 0.4 liters. The 0.2 is... unsatisfactory.
I just usually order 2 or 3 right away when I see that shit. What am I, an ant?
Ice holds it at 0°C though. For drinks that are delicious at 0°C but aren't as good at 5°C, that ice makes a big difference, especially if you've got a cup that's supposed to last 10+ minutes outdoors.
I drink 2 pitchers of tea with a meal. I will need refills with or with out ice in my glass.
Have you considered that that may be a lot of tea?
🤔 maybe
According to Google, 1 pitcher has a volume of 1.89 liters. If we assume they're mostly full (1.8l), that would be 3.6l of tea. It's recommended that you don't drink more than roughly 1l per hour.
You either eat very slowly, or you're doing bad things to your body.
It's a thing cause its not really as normalized, people don't really drink enough to get free refills in some places (although many places have free refills) and people here are generally used to warmer colas, although many people and places do add ice
Fountain drink: Depends on the restaurant. Some Burger Kings and McDs did have it, some removed it (probably exploited)
I don't want ice in my damn soda or ice.
If you like it, ask the staff for some. They will usually give it to you.
So dang euro you don't even want ice in your ice.
lmao. I meant to writer water but accidentally wrote something way better. Keeping that now.
Idk about Berlin, but I’m from the french riviera and we do put ice cubes everywhere.
Fait trop chaud dans le sud, c'est pr ça.
And by "everywhere" you mean in the pastis.
Indeed. The is the best seller when it comes to beverages in France. More than the bottled water Cristaline. Isn’t that surprising
McDonalds did refills for a while but then stopped again, idk why ¯\(ツ)/¯
I don't know for Germany but free soda refills are illegal in France
Why?
Why does France seemingly propose/executes the worst and/or weirdest things.
Because sugary drink are one of the leading cause of obesity, so rather than inciting people and children to drink more soda it's much healthier to offer free water and paid drinks.
With the same idea vending machines with soda or sugary snacks are not allowed in schools anymore.
On the other hand everything that France government is doing around internet and privacy law is pure nonsense, I agree with that.
I'm a fucking fiend for ice in my water, like I literally will fill the cup full of ice first, then put water in the space that's left. When I visited Europe it was fucking rough getting used to never having ice. And if you asked for it (which I tried not to do, but I caved a few times) they'd give you like 3 cubes
I absolutely hate ice in my drinks and have to always request it without or it gets added, this is in the UK
I see I've met my opposite
Ice cubes kinda suck.
But some places in the US have crushed ice and it's seriously the nicest thing ever.
Or the fact that you have to pay for fucking water. It's a God damned human right but you have to pay the same for water as any other drink at restaurants in Europe. By the glass. And the glasses hold exactly one to two mouthfulls of water.
I mean, it might just be a rumor but I hear that instead of being born with arms, Europeans are born with baguette extremities. They nibble on their baguette arms throughout the day, and they grow back while they’re sleeping.
Nah that's just the french, they're a little weird. Us germans got normal pretzel arms
Do the Swiss have cheese arms?
Yes and quite predictably Italians have pasta fingers.
Do Belgians have waffle ears?
Not a doctor and not familiar with Belgians sorry.
Chocolate
Lutefisk I heard...
I thought they were steins filled with Paulaner.
I met up for lunch with a buddy and his partner who was visiting from Europe. I mentioned that I drink a lot of water and asked for a refill, they asked if water was free.
Typically they ask you for still or sparkling while dining and they charge in Europe. In London, I typically just say, "tap". They had to legally serve it.
Yeah, tap water is something you can ask for basically everywhere and its free, bonus if it's in a place with amazing tap water
Now that's an intriguing idea: who has amazing tap water?
Scotland.
well I don't know but fun fact: Tallinn and the district of nõmme in Tallinn have separate tap water systems
It depends on the country, in Greece it's usually free, maybe in touristy places or if you order bottled water you will be charged, but otherwise most places will give you cold tap water for free.
I think it's legally required to give tap water for free mostly everywhere, but if you don't specify it they might sneak in an outrageously expensive bottle of mineral water, it's basically a way to scam tourists.
In Italy they don't, Italians are weird like that. It's also a country where nearly everyone doesn't trust their tap water and buy water in plastic bottles...
I know that a short visit doesnt give great insight into a place, but the following 2 things were very striking to me when visiting:
1 - the smoking.. i found it disturbing just how many people were smoking
2 - the graffiti. I was surprised by just how much graffiti there was. Do people not take pride in their property enough to wash it off? I know Graffiti is common everywhere, but it seemed to be on a whole other level in europe.. like it wasnt just on the back alleys, but on the front facades of buildings too. The front door of one of my airbnbs was covered in graffiti.
There was 1 thing though that was totally the opposite though & made total sense... the dual function windows (where you turn the handle 1 way to open them like a door & another way to lean them in to provide ventilation. These were everywhere & i found them to be the most functional thing ever! I wish they would catch on in the usa.. with that said, the first time i discovered this functionality, it was accidental. I panicked as i thought i broke the window lol.
The graffiti thing kills me. Washing it off is a waste, it will be vandalised again quickly. Think this way, repaint properly a wall takes time and money, to draw a cartoonishly large cock takes seconds and costs pennies. So many places chose to allow selected artists do some good stuff as it’s a better deterrent.
Psst there is a third way to just provide ventilation, where you put the handle in a 45 degree angle upwards.
You monster
You know that meme with Jesus about how they hated him for speaking the truth?
Imagine that please.
The smoking absolutely kills me, as someone with asthma who has gotten very used to the fact that most things in the US are non-smoking now. It felt like there was a cloud of smoke basically everywhere I went in France and, to a lesser extent, England.
No disabled access almost everywhere, even in newer buildings.
This is one thing I think America has done right, the ADA is so nice for people with disabilities. I want everyone to be able to experience everything so having the ADA being strong is perfectly okay with me. And I think both sides agree, everyone will get old someday!
Bear in mind, this is relatively recent in the US too. It's culturally connected with both the civil rights movement of the 1950s-1960s, and to the respect that Americans (sometimes) express for war veterans.
This really depends on the place, but yeah some places have pretty awful mobility, like there's a path next to my house with stairs and no ramp on it
Inwinder where in Europe it's like this. Where I've been most places are accessible
How do they put up with the lack of mass shootings ?
Growing up without the adrenaline rush when crossing school’s gates is indeed a tragedy. Heckin boring
Yeah wheres the excitement
It's like the abortion lottery with the most corrupted poor States working hard to enslave women's bodies to their institutionalized meat lottery of school shootings and miserable impoverished existence all to feed the insatiable appetite of the parasitic billionaires. How can those Europeans really live without getting to experience the Grand Republican Hunger Games.
It largely depends on the European nation. Even as a non-native, I don't tend to lump them all in one judgment, just as Europeans shouldn't lump all Americans in one judgment. Every American state is different. Reply to this comment with a European country and I'll share the thing about it that I understand the least.
That's what I'm saying, the UK and Bosnia for example are very different places
Belgium
As a Dutch person, a bit off topic, but some truth in television that I found funny:
The Belgians' relationship with fries.
Last summer I was at a former military camp in the German hills, managed by Belgium when it was still operational, and we had a Belgian tour guide who'd served in the camp when it was active. He joked that the Belgian conscripts serving in that camp still got fries thrice a week, or they'd have a riot.
The lack of a feeling of equal opportunity the secessionists all have for each other. If one group has the right to leave, I'd think all do.
Czechlands.
The thing I understood the least about the Czechlands is why Czechoslovakia didn't have one identity (for a lack of a better way to put it). Like it always seemed like a compound of two places, as opposed to a singular distinct body.
Self defense laws are pretty weird in Europe. I am spoiled on our second amendment laws, so let my bias be noted.
However, some guy can break into your house and if you defend yourself with a bat or knife, the laws there from what I hear (this isn't fact, I could be mistaken) can get you in trouble with the law. I remember reading that somewhere.
Sure it's like that in the US too but there are many protections for those who clearly have acted in self defense.
I think the difference is welf defense in Europe is defending your person, not your property. If someone breaks in, you don't have the right to hurt them. You call the police. If they were trying to attack you or you alerting them to your presence makes them come for you, then of course you can defend yourself.
Self defence is just that. Defence of the self.
One thing that your 2a right also means is that your criminals are likely to be armed. Ours are less likely to be and certainly much less likely for petty crime. The police in Ireland, for instanc, don't carry guns.
If someone breaks into my house. I'm not approaching them with hugs. I'm calling the police and grabbing a golf club or poker or similar.
This guy is extremely conservative and a former cop. (He doesn't fly his politics, but you can tell.) He has testified in dozens of deadly force trials as an expert witness. Here's what he has to say about defending property. Very eye opening.
“In the anti-gun Spokane newspaper, internet comments indicated that many people had the clueless idea that Gerlach had shot the man – in the back – to stop the thief from stealing his car. One idiot wrote in defense of doing such, “That ‘inert property’ as you call it represents a significant part of a man’s life. Stealing it is the same as stealing a part of his life. Part of my life is far more important than all of a thief’s life.”
Analyze that statement. The world revolves around this speaker so much that a bit of his life spent earning an expensive object is worth “all of (another man’s) life.” Never forget that, in this country, human life is seen by the courts as having a higher value than what those courts call “mere property,” even if you’re shooting the most incorrigible lifelong thief to keep him from stealing the Hope Diamond. A principle of our law is also that the evil man has the same rights as a good man. Here we have yet another case of a person dangerously confusing “how he thinks things ought to be” with “how things actually are.”
As a rule of thumb, American law does not justify the use of deadly force to protect what the courts have called “mere property.” In the rare jurisdiction that does appear to allow this, ask yourself how the following words would resonate with a jury when uttered by plaintiff’s counsel in closing argument: “Ladies and gentlemen, the defendant has admitted that he killed the deceased over property. How much difference is there in your hearts between the man who kills another to steal that man’s property, and one who kills another to maintain possession of his own? Either way, he ended a human life for mere property!”
― Massad Ayoob, Deadly Force - Understanding Your Right To Self Defense
Self defense is of course allowed, but only so far as to prevent harm. It also needs to be adequate to prevent the harm the attacker tried to inflict. So shooting someone who entered isn't okay, you could've just held the gun at them. Which isn't relevant cause you don't have a gun and neither do they, most likely.
Man catchers should become more common.
Same bias as yourself. I find it stunning that the British police are so proud of the pocketknives they confiscate.
Yeah it's weird to see butterknives on public sites being confiscated as they're clearly a dangerous weapon. But surprisingly knife crime is really low compared to most of the world (yes I mean America)
America has a violence problem. Take away all the gun violence and we're still worse than other developed countries.
Why do you have so many measurement units for car engine power?
Like, with HP and kW is enough.
PS is Pferdestärke, which is just horsepower in German. I think CH is the same in French, and CV... Italian? So maybe the other ones also all mean HP. I don't know why they put all of them there, but maybe it's because since it's not a SI unit, there is no official abbreviation everyone knows.
Edit: Just looked it up and I was wrong, they are actually different units, even though horse related. Even HP (747.7 W) and PS (735.5 W) are slightly different. What a mess, that's why we need SI units.
With the inevitable arrival of electric cars, i bet that [kW] will be the new standard for engine power.
They already are.
The same way food packaging must mention the calorie content in joules and kcal is optional, cars have to be advertised with watt.
It has been for a while, horsepower is a legacy unit. Taxes and whatever are based on the kW value.
Taxes?
In some countries, your yearly car registration taxes are proportional to how much horsepower and pollution it generates.
We can only hope. A unifying measurement is the first start to cross cultural understanding and appreciation!
Well, I just ended up looking up horse power. So there's metric horse power, mechanical horse power, brake horse power. Most of the ones in your picture are some kind of horse power.
I'm not American but i've worked in Western Europe. I don't know why but there seems to be a lot of taxes for everything. You have to get govt permission for everything. People seem to rely on the govt to provide things rather than have some agencies fill niches that aren't filled by the govt (for example I saw signs like don't help homeless people, the govt is helping them).
I'm from an Asian country, we don't have much tax, we don't rely on the govt for anything (we can't), and we have many NGOs. I think it's similar in America.
As an Asian, there are a few things I can note about Europeans.
Europeans seem to have lost their sense of traditions, to me as an Asian it doesn't make sense since keeping our traditions and values is a huge part of our culture and society.
Europeans also accept blame for bad things they did in the past (which is a good thing) but I think they can go overboard to compensate for that (to their detriment). I don't think accepting blame for things in the past is a thing that's done in Asia; we rewrite history instead. It would help if we acknowledged what we did and can have better relations with others moving forward.
Europeans identify more with nationality than ethnicity. For example, someone from Czech Republic moving to France is considered French. In North America I think they would be considered Czech-French. In Asia they would be considered to be a Czech expat living in France. Our ethnicity matters a lot.
People seem to rely on the govt to provide things rather than have some agencies fill niches that aren't filled by the govt (for example I saw signs like don't help homeless people, the govt is helping them).
I'm from an Asian country, we don't have much tax, we don't rely on the govt for anything (we can't), and we have many NGOs.
Most (but not all!) Europeans consider NGOs to be undemocratic, whereas the government is (theoretically at least) under democratic control.
Europeans identify more with nationality than ethnicity. For example, someone from Czech Republic moving to France is considered French. In North America I think they would be considered Czech-French. In Asia they would be considered to be a Czech expat living in France. Our ethnicity matters a lot.
But at what point would you stop doing so? I'm Dutch yet can trace back my ancestry to the 16th century in Belgium and northern France, what ethnicity do I have? And some have an even longer and more dispersed pedigree.
Also, you gave the example of French but what is now called France was made up from a large variety of ethnicities. Being French then is not defined as being a particular ethnicity but as belonging to the French Republic. It's a cultural thing that matters a lot to them.
what does it mean that europeans consider NGOs to be undemocratic?
if your ancestry is from belgium/north france then you would be belgian/french with dutch nationality. I suppose when we refer to France we mean French before the 19th century immigration.
It differs a bit where I'm from. I have a friend from Malaysia who identifies as "Tamil-Malaysian" (Tamil being the ethnic group and Malaysian being the country). In HK we have a lot of ethnic minorities. Speaking frankly, if you look chinese, you would be considered HKer right off the bat, if you look any other skin colour (white, other asian, etc) you will be considered a foreigner living in HK even if your family has been there for generations. Here is a video i found as an example where some Indians who were born and raised in HK struggle to be seen as HKer
what does it mean that europeans consider NGOs to be undemocratic?
An NGO has its own policies and its own governance, which may or may not align with the wishes of the wider populace (for instance, a religious NGO in a secular society, or an NGO treating particular groups preferentially). A majority disagreeing with the policies of that NGO would achieve nothing, whereas with a governmental body they could exert democratic control.
if your ancestry is from belgium/north france then you would be belgian/french with dutch nationality.
Why? Good grief, do you have any idea how complicated that would be? Secondly, I don't identify with that ethnicity you're foisting upon me at all!
I suppose when we refer to France we mean French before the 19th century immigration.
Why? As I said: France was always a mixture of ethnicities, the 19th century didn't change anything other than the skin colour of some of the French citizens (or is that what you're hinting at?).
For me personally, someone being Dutch is based more on their attitude towards the Netherlands and other Dutch people: anyone who is loath to run into other Dutch people when abroad and who loves to complain about specific stupid policies of the Dutch government counts as Dutch to me.
Speaking frankly, if you look chinese, you would be considered HKer right off the bat, if you look any other skin colour (white, other asian, etc) you will be considered a foreigner living in HK even if your family has been there for generations.
Excluding people based on how they look, irregardless of what else (intelligence, special talents) they bring to the table, is widely considered to be racism and not acceptable in European society. I'm sure there are Europeans who think like you do, however, it's not something that wider society considers acceptable (not to mention can be illegal).
Why? As I said: France was always a mixture of ethnicities, the 19th century didn’t change anything other than the skin colour of some of the French citizens (or is that what you’re hinting at?).
"France's population dynamics began to change in the middle of the 19th century, as France joined the Industrial Revolution. The pace of industrial growth attracted millions of European immigrants over the next century, with especially large numbers arriving from Poland, Belgium, Portugal, Italy, and Spain.[10] In the wake of the First World War, in which France suffered six million casualties, significant numbers of workers from French colonies came. By 1930, the Paris region alone had a North African Muslim population of 70,000. Right after the Second World War, immigration to France significantly increased. During the period of reconstruction, France lacked labor, and as a result, the French government was eager to recruit immigrants coming from all over Europe, the Americas, Africa and Asia. "
This is what i'm referring to (the quote is from wikipedia). People from Poland, Belgium, Portugal, Italy, Spain, North Africa, Asia, and Africa would be considered French to a French person right? but to us they are expats who've moved to France. We wouldn't consider them French necessarily.
For me personally, someone being Dutch is based more on their attitude towards the Netherlands and other Dutch people: anyone who is loath to run into other Dutch people when abroad and who loves to complain about specific stupid policies of the Dutch government counts as Dutch to me.
Yes, this is the kind of thing that seems distinctly European to me.
Excluding people based on how they look, irregardless of what else (intelligence, special talents) they bring to the table, is widely considered to be racism
ethnic minorities being segregated/excluded is a separate issue (this ties with being able to speak Cantonese, govt policies for education, etc.). I wouldn't say that ethnic minorities/skin colour minorities are excluded from things in society per se, it's that they are viewed as foreigners and not "real HKers". Racism is very much a thing in Asia, i would say more so from older generations, i think younger generations are more open minded and understanding.
Thanks for the other explanations as well
what does it mean that europeans consider NGOs to be undemocratic?
In a democracy power should allways be held by the people. If you have a NGO -even when it does very good things- there allways is a danger that it could go against the peoples ideals or even their interests.
You (as in the people as a whole) are also not as soverign when relying on NGOs for basic societal needs like a social saftey net as the voluntary donations founding them could stop any time. Thereby the power is transfered the donors (althought luckily most small-mid sized donors do not really exercize that power) who are mostly the wealthy as they just have more money to spend.
A better solution is taxing fairly and using the common found gained throught that in a way the majority decides.
I recently watched an interesting video from Adam Conover on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cu6EbELZ6I.
Altgought I do not agree with everything said (I don't think the Patagonia nonprofit in particular is problematic in my opinion the focus should have been set even more on the issue of something like that beeing possible) I agree with the key message for the reason provided above.
there allways is a danger that it could go against the peoples ideals or even their interests.
isn't this the same reasoning for govt though? politicians will say one thing for votes and do another thing. If anything it's worse to trust a govt who will more likely go against people's interests. At least an NGO has a stated aim.
not really. In an ideal democracy you could simply vote those people out in the next election . In a well working democracy there is only so much they can do before they are not reelected.
The difference to NGOs is that in a democracy one person (ideally) has exactly one vote while your influence on non profits -especially when you are wealthy enought to afford your own- is mkreso connected to what you (can) donate, so how wealthy you are.
In my opinion that makes relying on government more egalitarian whereas a system built on charities is more seceptable to oligarchigal structures.
(I understand that in many places Governments are (very) currupt or not democratic to begin with and there are many NGOs that are democratic (or meybe just plain better for the interests of the people) compared to those governments. And in those cases these NGOs are -for now- obviously better then the government.
But imo with a stable democracy the government is a fairer morer stable and more equal solution.
Most European countries are EXTREMELY conservative culturally. They are very concerned about preserving “tradition”. Specially in Southern and Easter Europe. Even Germans listen mostly to German music, French to French music etc.
Talk to an avarage Portuguese or Dutch about colonialism… see how much they “regret” or “accept the blame” for the shit they did.
Most countries in Europe are not mono-ethnical, and haven’t been for a long time, like hundreds and hundreds of years. This is also true of Asia in some parts, but mostly Asia has a lot of mono-ethnicity countries. Your example of France, it’s had the Bretons, Basque, Occitan, “French”, Belgians, Flemish and Germans since it’s inception as a country. It was born as a nation by subduing those identities for French maximalism. The same for Italy, Spain, Germany etc etc.
Talk to an avarage Portuguese or Dutch about colonialism… see how much they “regret” or “accept the blame” for the shit they did.
Dutch here. Yeah, nah, we don't. Maybe some lip service is being made towards the descendants of enslaved peoples in Surinam, but otherwise not really.
When I was young the period when the Dutch VOC flowered was taught as having been a really good thing, something that we could be proud of; the fact that this was accompanied by morethanone episode of mass murder was entirely glossed over. I'm pretty sure it's still mostly like that.
Most European countries are EXTREMELY conservative culturally. They are very concerned about preserving “tradition”. Specially in Southern and Easter Europe. Even Germans listen mostly to German music, French to French music etc.
Definitely not true for Germany.
For the shit they did? Who was alive 2 centuries ago? And taking responsibility for past actions is a huge thing in the Netherlands for at least since the past 5-10 years.
2 centuries?
European colonialism continued well into the mid 20th century. There are still people alive who directly participated in them.
Besides that, even thought most alive today did not participate directly they still benifit immensly from the colonial past of their countries as anouther comment allready mentioned.
And taking responsibility has been very slow/late and limited, often being limeted to apologies without reperations.
The Belgian Crown for example only apologized for its involvement in forced labor and exploitation in the Congo three years ago.
Germany only recognized its genocide in Namibia two years ago and refuses to pay reperations.
So yes for the shit they did (or bear a responsibility for if you wanna be more percise).
2 centuries?
European colonialism continued well into the mid 20th century. There are still people alive who directly participated in them.
Besides that, even thought most alive today did not participate directly they still benifit immensly from the colonial past of their countries.
And taking responsibility has been very slow/late and limited, often being limeted to apologies without reperations.
The Belgian Crown for example only apologized for its involvement in forced labor and exploitation in the Congo three years ago.
Germany only recognized its genocide in Namibia two years ago and refuses to pay reperations.
The wealth of the colonial countries is entirely due to wealth extracted from the colonies. If they don’t want the responsibility, they should also give away all their wealth.
You can’t have one and not the other.
Either a free consciousness or the stolen wealth.
entirely
Uh huh. Go away and come back when you're done with slogans and want to have an actual conversation based in reality.
Yes, certain countries have taken quite a bit of wealth and discussion can be had about that.
Claiming that these countries got all their wealth "from the colonies" and need to give it all back is just just not true and disingenuous and poisoning the discussion
For starters, I couldn't find any bugles. But I did spend a month or two over there and a few hotels had these weird showers where there was only a half pane of protection abridged to the wall. So the shower head pointed away from the coverage and there was no curtain! Every shower seemed to be just flooding the bathroom and not be in the tub. Either that or I'm an idiot. I will equally accept both scenarios
I couldn't find any bugles
The bastards stopped selling them in Canada too.
I miss my crunchy finger hats.
Several hotels just have poorly "designed" bathrooms. Often it's more like they tried to fit the current style somehow into the existing rooms.
When done correctly, water will stay in a certain area without sprinkling or even flooding everything else.
There's loads of Bugles everywhere I've been, we even have stuff to put in them.
Can you find an example picture of the shower situation? I'm intrigued.
Sounds like they're describing this kind of thing:
If you're putting water all over the floor when using a shower like this one, it's definitely user error.
I'm not OP but the picture I found is far from the worst offender, I rented somewhere for a while where the top of the screen door wasn't close to being as tall as me or the shower. It really isn't as simple as people just being stupid.
Yeah I can definitely agree some are much worse! I was just referring to the specific one in this picture.
In my old apartment in the Netherlands the shower was literally just going to the floor and the entire bathroom was a "wet room", the drain wasn't even under the shower but in another corner. It was weird but actually I loved it, cleaning the place was so easy, just get naked, scrub with cleaning products and then rinse the entire room down with the showerhead.
More specifically Nordic countries I guess, but surstromming. I understand even amongst them it's a niche delicacy but just fermented gelatinous fish doesn't sound like something that would be enjoyable to eat.
That's not "Nordic countries", that is just Sweden.
Tiny things, like tiny doorknobs, tiny stairs cases, tiny doors, tiny houses, tiny cars, and a tiny say in government legislation, etc.
And all the smoking! Eek. And we thought we had a drug problem in the USA. I've never seen so many people addicted to nicotine in my life when I've been there. It's everywhere. No thank you, I don't want to inhale nasty odor while eating my lunch. Jeez, WTF?
The rest I understand, but tiny doorknobs and tiny say in legislation? Can you elaborate? I thought door knobs were a US thing and Europe had mostly handles. And what is different in terms of say in government? Do you mean the states' direct democratic votes?
a tiny say in government legislation, etc.
wat
I can't think of anywhere in Europe where it is legal to smoke in restaurants.
Also the rest of your descriptions sound not based on actual personal experience but on memes from the internet.
And we thought we had a drug problem in the USA.
I'd rather have smokers than opioid addicts, but to each their own
Tbh I’d rather have a nicotine problem than a crack problem. Never seen so many crackheads than in the US. It seems to be also quite a problem in the UK/Ireland, but in France it’s really uncommon. There are a few places in Paris but that’s about it.
Something that always stands out to me is the roll-down window coverings. It's not that they don't make sense to me. In fact, they could be very advantageous here in the US in rough areas. It's just that they are everywhere including in seemingly low crime areas in Europe. Someone could make a killing here in the states marketing these things.
It's usually not for security but for insulation. External cover with the window behind is the best possible cover against the sun, and it's also good against the cold. It covers sound too.
In my area we use them mostly to keep the sun out. It's getting less effective with climate change so most of my neighbours have been installing air-conditioning as well, at least for the bedroom.
I worked for a European smarthome company trying to expand into North America, and I put quite a bit of effort into selling the concept to Americans.
External shades and shutters are easier to install, easier to hardwire (no batteries or remotes requires), they save significant energy because they keep the sun outside of the glass, and they can be automated to track the sun throughout the day. Internal motorized shades all suck for the same reason, because they have to be whisper quiet and wireless.
The biggest hurdle is the frequency with which Americans buy and sell homes. Hardwired automated anything is a permanent installation, while every realtor in America will tell you to remove window treatments when selling because buyers might not like the fabric. Europeans tend to live in their homes much longer, and don't buy and sell homes like hermit crabs changing shells.
That explanation actually makes so much sense. I've always wondered why shutters aren't a thing in the US.
In Europe (at least southern Europe), because every house has shutters, they're just not seen as something you personally own or that you find ugly/needs replacing. When you move houses you're just moving to another house with shutters so it's not even a factor you think about.
They are not common everywhere in Europe sadly! But they are not just for protection, they are also used instead of thick curtains for darkening the room (my gut feeling tells me that they are more common in the southern European countries).
How much they personally hate/dislike us.
They've seen too many movies and make unfair assumptions about us and then judge us? Idk.
How racist they are but have no idea they are.
They ridicule the US for our own brand of terrible racism but seem to be clueless that they and their government have their own vicious and oppressive racism.
How stuck in tradition they are.
I feel like I don't see a lot of progress in construction, culinary arts, or caste systems (to name a few).
I have to kind of disagree with the last point. We have no caste systems, culinary arts are pretty non important, and usually if people want something new they will go to a specialized restaurant. How did the USA change their culinary arts in the past 30 years?
Construction, it did change, and it is constantly changing. We used to use just bricks, now we use porous concrete, and wooden is becoming interesting aswell.
We are not building skyscrapers because they are ugly.
Or am I wrong? I am from Czechia.
I've literally never once met any single person that "hated" Americans, and everyone who's ever met an American says they're lovely, just like us
The best theory we can come up with is that Americans are taught from a young age that their country is the best, and no-one should be allowed to say otherwise. Hence, even the slightest criticism is seen as hate.
Europeans, however, are raised on the belief that self-deprecation is a fuckin art
Not so much here, but you couldn't go more than a couple minutes on reddit without reading some comment on how America is a third world shithole.
English speaking reddit, yes.
If you visit /r/de for example, you'll find that everyone is complaining about Germany being a shit hole country. It's simply unfortunate, if you don't speak a second language, you never get good insight into how people view their own country.
I grew up in Alaska. I live in Germany.
Germans think air conditioning makes people sick - not because it could be dirty if poorly maintained, but because the chilled air will do... something.
German cars can't be locked with the driver's door open; German apartments can't be unlocked if the door is closed.
German tap water is both palatable and safe to drink; almost everyone drinks bottled water.
In grocery stores, most Germans try to pack the conveyor belt at the checkout as tightly as possible and crowd the next person in line, as if space on the belt isn't a renewable resource.
German cars can't be locked with the driver's door open
This is becoming increasingly common is cars produced around the world. I'm a huge fan of it, personally.
German apartments can't be unlocked if the door is closed
I have no idea what this means. Wouldn't the door always be closed if it's locked?
Being unable to lock the car door while it's open contributed to a German car I owned in the USA being stolen. A family member thought the lock was broken and left it unlocked.
Wouldn’t the door always be closed if it’s locked?
I meant the inverse; if the door is closed, it cannot be opened from the outside without a key. American doors typically have a turnable doorknob on the outside and can be opened without a key unless deliberately locked.
I've only been to Germany (and technically Ireland but I was just changing planes there) and didn't really find anything to be too weird or different than what I know of living in California. The biggest thing was just how all the normal shops and restaurants closed fairly early (like 6pm) and there was a red light district that opened up around that time. They even had the thing where some of the establishments had naked dancing women in the windows so you can see them from the street. I never actually went in, but I walked the whole block nearly every night when I was there at 19 years old.
In Germany, you can be driving straight down a road and someone can pull out onto the road from a turn and you have to yield to them. It seems extremely dangerous. Also, stop lights are directly above you, instead of across the street so if you’re looking at the stop light you can’t really pay attention very well to the traffic in the intersection.
A lot of stuff makes a lot more sense but these two things seem illogical to me.
The stoplight thing is social engineering. They do it so that you're incentivised to stop where you're supposed to, not halfway into the intersection
I live in Germany and I have no idea what you're talking about for the first thing, maybe you mean yield-to-right in unmarked intersections or the priority road system? I'm not really sure. In either case you are just mentally inserting yield signs based on standard rules.
The stoplight thing I feel in my soul though. The amount of times I've had to stare out my sunroof to see the light above me because I stopped on the line instead of 20 feet before it.
Yeah I think that’s it. It’s just different in my country, so feels unnatural that’s all…works kind of the opposite I think, here the person turning yields to the straight traffic when it is not marked.
That rule also exists.
In general if you are the one to turn/leave your lane, you have to yield to everyone you would somehow cross. Also pedestrians, cyclists, etc. Which IMO also makes sense, since the one who turns knows that he will turn and can monitor his surroundings more closely than every other one affected.
Now what you spoke of earlier: if a crossing has no signs whatsoever, the rule is that you always yield to the one coming from your right. So unless there's someone on all four streets that lead to the crossing, it resolves itself. Otherwise one of them has to give up their right and let someone else throughs. The rule I mentioned before has still precedence.
This might be radical, but the way they view rights when compared to Americans. Europeans believe their rights are given to them by their government, and that the government can give our take them as they see fit, while Americans view their rights as immutable freedoms given to them simply for existing.
Why smoking remains so prevalent. I'm sure it's not a majority that smokes, but it is massively more common anywhere I've been in Europe than here in the US. I live in a fairly large city and I will go many days in a row without seeing a single person smoking.
I just don't really get it. It's gross, it smells, it ruins your teeth and your lungs, and it's expensive. Why do it?
In my case, and this the US, I had friends who smoked.
I was curious, bummed one, and once I got past the coughing I really enjoyed the effects, that said by the time you no longer get the "high" (for lack of a better word) you're addicted.
Fast forward 20 years and I'm still trying to quit.
Quit for 5 years cold turkey, but... Shit went down in almost every facet of my life, and I went back.
But I'm down to about a pack a week.
One in the morning, one on the road to work, and one or two during my shift if time allows.
Just need to kick it for good.
Edit: To correct typos
Hey dude, I believe in you. You can do it again and do it for good! Don't give up.
It's not necessarily that smoking is a larger percentage of the population. It varies, but stats show a similar percentage more or less... it is a bit higher in Europe on average than in the US on average — but both places are large with varied amounts of smokers. It's more that people are outside near each other more in Europe.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/smoking-rates-by-country
In Europe they're walking down the street, sitting outdoors at cafes, hanging out in the city center, etc. Whereas in the US, people are often driving from place to place to go to a destination, so you don't notice the smoking as much. Plus, smoking sections are a concept that exists in the US (even outside), whereas they don't in Europe. Thankfully, in much of the US and EU, most places are finally non-smoking indoors now.
This is a gross overgeneralization. It's different in different parts of the US and different parts of Europe, of course.
(FWIW: I totally agree with you that it's gross. And it's far too common to run into in Europe.)
this is the same in asia. sometimes people don't even smoke, they just smoke because their boss does it and they do it to fit in at work. it's really awful.
Not the case in northern Europe by the way. I'm just as shocked when visiting countries in mid/south Europe
It’s way too broad a comparison. In my North Eastern US state, encountering smokers isn’t that common because it’s illegal inside and anywhere near a door. So to smoke, you have to pretty much hide. And it’s become uncommon enough, smoking makes you a pariah so people seem to be breaking the official rules less often as time goes on due to social pressure more than fear of enforcement. We were out at a bar the other day and a guy smoked on the patio and it very much stood out. You could feel the vitriol for this guy in the atmosphere and after a minute he walked in to the parking lot looking embarrassed. Not that long ago a waitress would have brought him an ash tray.
But go to Kentucky, there’s no rules about smoking anywhere. Last time I was there, we went to a grocery store with an ashtray between isles. Every building we went in to smelled like the 80s.
These are both the USA. And then in Europe, you do have countries like Bulgaria, Turkey, and Greece where more than 25% of the country smokes, which is higher than anywhere in the US. But then you have Sweden with only 6% and Norway with 7% which is a little bit better than anywhere in the US.
It really depends on the area, in some places smoking isnt really normalized anymore, in some places its the norm
In the USA less than 9% of the population smokes now. It's probably around ~7% at this point. It's crazy that we keep putting out laws like it's a massive issue. The reality is alcoholism is way worse than it's ever been yet it's still allowed to advertise on the TV and they can sell fruity flavors...but think of the children when it comes to tobacco...
I'm hesitant to spin valid concerns about alcohol into de-vilification of smoking. They are both vices, both unhealthy, both dangerous to the user and those around them for different reasons.
So yeah, it's valid to say we ignore the dangers of alcohol. But also yes, we should "think of the children" when it comes to tobacco.
What kid is picking up coffin nails these days? They vape or drink. It's probably why the FDA dropped deeming regulations when the cigar manufacturers went after them, no kid is smoking a $10 cigar.
That is threadbare justification for deregulation of something we know has basically entirely negative effects and absolutely is something that kids have historically done.
Kids' habits are fickle and unpredictable. Removing barriers to destructive behavior simply because they don't do that behavior as often anymore (the current regulations seem to work??) makes no sense.
The issue is they're not just leaving them in place, they're adding more regulations, while ignoring alcohol. More people are alcoholics now than ever, and everyone is completely fine with it, but smoking is taboo and "omg think of the children".
But... It's still not bad that those smoking regulations are being put in place.
It weakens the argument for additional alcohol regulation when you keep insisting that the regulations being put on another similar vice are pointless.
How do you figure? Those of us who enjoy cigars/pipe tobacco/snuff are basically seeing our vices disappear because "think of the children". Small makers are being forced to close because of the regulations on cigs. All while alcohol is completely allowed to do what it wants.
The argument works exactly the same the other way. Your rationale is based on your own preferences.
In a vacuum both tobacco and alcohol are destructive vices with no real discernible objective "benefits" to larger society. The argument against alcohol is exactly the same as the one against tobacco products. They harm the user and potentially those around them.
I'm not saying that tobacco should be further regulated while alcohol is not. But I am saying that the rationale for alcohol regulation is ultimately based on a desire to limit destructive behavior, which is the same rationale for limits on tobacco. You cannot effectively argue for deregulation of tobacco while arguing for increased regulation of alcohol. They are two sides of the same coin.
I think that's what you are missing here. I'm not arguing for more regulation on alcohol. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of it all. How alcohol is completely overlooked by society but tobacco is this taboo thing now.
Well, the U.S. consumes a significant amount less alcohol than most European countries. So with both vices, Europe is doing worse than the U.S.
Sure but both countries are pushing tobacco laws like mad, while not touching alcohol.
It's literally prohibition all over again...
I'm one for letting people enjoy whatever vice they want, even if it's hard drugs, but only because I know prohibition doesn't work. We shouldn't be telling adults what they can and cannot enjoy
Cigarettes are much worse for everyone around you than alcohol. Passive smoking is pretty dangerous and the main reason why so many laws exist against smoking in public places.
No it is not, the 2nd hand studies where flawed heavily. Smoking is bad for you period, but second hand smoke is as bad for you as sitting in traffic. Alcohol is bad for people around you as well, lots of DUIs were people are harmed and killed because of it.
To an extent, I see where you're coming from, but if we keep cigarettes legal, most of the additives need to go. There's no need to put tar and acytone in a cigarette.
They don't put those things in cigs. It's a by product of burning tobacco. Those lists of whats in a cigarette are bullshit, it's just the chemical reaction of burning something.
There are laws against smoking in public places and cigarettes are expensive. Those who smoke are in it for themselves, not a European thing.
It's definitly a thing in some places. I travel a lot between Switzerland and Germany and the difference in how much public smoking there is, is quite extreme.
I'm not at a level of expertise where I can say for sure how much of an effect they've had, but part of the resolution of that lawsuit in the US where it was determined that the tobacco industry knew tobacco was addictive and caused cancer was that the industry had to establish a fund that was earmarked for anti-smoking advertisements. Those commercials by the Truth Initiative warning kids about the dangers of nicotine? At least partially funded by big tobacco.
Why do they not want to go bankrupt from major health issues?
I was listening a podcast about cancer patient in France.
One talk was about the fact that the surgeon was planning on removing the breast tumor AND do the reconstruction directly after.
Except that by doing that the operation would have cost more than what the national social security covers, so it meant a big premium for the patient.
The "big" premium they were taking about was 600€ which is obviously outrageous. To make a cancer patient spend this much money on a life saving procedure.
European here: I agree with this being outrageous. It's not about the money, it's about being a civilised society.
Now hospital parking on the other hand...
We do have some steep copayments for some treatments as well. For example, if I had to go to the hospital for a month I'd have to pay about 1000 EUR myself.
I was in the hospital for an outpatient procedure a couple of years ago here in the U.S. So not even overnight. I have good insurance. It cost me $2500.
I'm q
If I had to go into the hospital for a month, I truly would rather kill myself than have that shit looming over my for the rest of my life.
The trick is: Just don't pay these fuckers, what are they going to do? Show up and kill you?
Maybe you get sued, but maybe they don't even bother because it's not worth the cost of lawyers.
Either way, money isn't worth dying for, even in a fucked up dystopian system.
Except now you can’t buy a house or get a loan on a car because you have this massive outstanding debt…
Jokes on them I wouldn't be able to buy a house or car that requires a loan anyways.
Beats dying.
Ouch, way to punch below the belt lol
I think that amount is way too high. Nowadays I could afford it without problems, but a few years back spending some time in hospital would've messed up my budget.
I might be fine with paying for elective procedures - but hospital stays for other reasons should be covered by healthcare.
I agree it should all be free for non-elective procedures, but that's pretty much the cost of a few hours at an American hospital. The fact I thought you were being sarcastic and were not really reinforces how messed up our healthcare system is
300 here.
Depends on the country. There are countries where everything is covered.
Monarchy. It's the 21st Century and y'all still pay people to live a lavish lifestyle because they are distantly related to some warlord from the 9th century
Then again, the people in all countries pay for the lifestyle of the politicians... in addition to the bribes they get for deciding in favor of whichever corporate and/or rich person needs a specific law passed or vetoed.
At least the monarchs do what you pay them for .... entertain you.
The King in the UK was caught with briefcases full of money declared as a 'donation'. He has also interfered in our politics including encouraging the government to buy ineffective homeopathic 'medicines'. They have also stopped the conviction of serious sex crimes royals have committed. Because the police get the power granted by royalty and can't persecute them.
At least we can vote the politicians out. Fuck monarchies.
Politicians don't do shit in America. Corporations govern the country and you can't vote them out.
Your right.
I don't want my tax dollars paying for politicans either.
I would be fine with it, if they were not allowed any other incomes during the time they get payed by the people.
Oh and of course they should be forced to do their jobs. If they don't fully attend sessions, cut their pay.
Deswegen sind die ja auch nicht in der EU
Lustig, wie jetzt im Bezug auf das Mem sowohl Norwegen als auch Großbritannien nicht in der EU sind.
Edit: Context for those who merely translated, but didn't understand. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGlPbphlpBg
Nowhere in the question does it specify EU countries. It simply says European.
You're taking this too serious.
I'm referencing crane driver Ronny in Norway ("Kranplätze müssen verdichtet sein!" : crane parking needs to be condensed (ground)), a reality TV icon in German language online communities and because the quote and context applies to both Norway and the UK which are both European, but not EU countries (that's relevant because that's part of the referenced joke), I posted that comment.
Neither does your comment. So pointing out that "y'all" in this instance is not actually meant to be taken literally is worth pointing out.
SPEAK ANGLO-SAXON YOU SON OF A BITCH!
SNAKK PLATT ORRER STIRB
Specific to Germany, but when a second cashier opens up, it's a first come first serve rush for it, rather than letting the person next inline at the original cashier take the first spot in the new one.
Completely agree. I am German and it's utterly ridiculous.
Demanding to have another cashier is so rude yet so many do it all the time.
Oh my god I love this. Let the chaos begin
The Brits would never.
Queuing is a national pastime.
When I visit, I looooooove the civilized queues, but I can’t for the life of me understand why the slow lane on escalators is on the right (like you might find in big American cities) instead of the left (like you might find on a British highway).
Hun barbarism! Do Germans not know how to queue?
They do not
From what I heard about queueing practices in Eastern Europe and Northern Asia, no, not at all. For example, a long-time queue doesn't need people, it just needs some belongings queued.
German here, it's slowly getting better. Slowly.
I belong to neither of these groups. But here goes it.
Europe: when ordering water, I have to specify for it not to have gas (non-carbonated). Also in places like Germany, people drink those before playing football. I don’t understand how you do it or even like it that way.
People in electric scooters are out of control. Specially in Spain. They’re the most egregious when it comes to disrespecting pedestrian crosswalks, dangerous overtaking in bike lanes and all around assholeness. You shouldn’t ride your fucking patinete in a train station crowded with people.
— —-
People from the US: Your tipping culture is out of control. It’s good for outstanding service on certain scenarios. But not for handing me takeout or pulling out a foamy beer from a cooler.
Also , don’t tell newly-aquatinted people from the south that you’re not religious. They’ll try to tell you it’s their duty to save your soul and try to make you go to their religious services, which antagonizes them if you try to set boundaries on your personal beliefs.
Btw. I still like you both.
I like the taste of TV static. Sue me!
Dude I love seltzer. Especially fruit-flavored seltzer…but club soda is pretty good too. I don’t really like unflavored seltzer though, but it depends on a lot…the brand, the bottle, whether or not there’s a straw…a lot of variance in the bubbles.
Definitely! The water flavor by itself is very important, though I've noticed that the carbonation process masks slightly bad flavors pretty well. I make my own seltzer with tap water which is pretty good here luckily :)
One I love is Apfelschorle - apple juice with seltzer. A little juice goes a long way!
How do you make your seltzer? Soda stream or some other contraption?
Do you use “apple juice” or do you like…make ice cubes out of a can of concentrate and throw a cube into a homemade bottle of seltzer?
Soda stream, yep!
And it's literally just one part apple juice to like three parts seltzer, both mixed in a glass of jug. No ice cubes or anything :)
American here, I saw a tip jar for the cashiers in a flea market yesterday. I completely agree, it's out of control. It would be great if employers would just pay their employees properly instead of asking customers to subsidize wages.
These are the things that stood out to me whenever I have visited.
I spent a good while in Berlin once and one of my favorite restaurants was this Australian themed place by the IMAX theater just because I could get a nice big Diet Coke with ice in it. Their kangaroo sandwich also wasn’t half bad.
We're not getting refills anyway, I'd rather not have 80% ice with a bit of soda
The process of a soda fountain makes already it cold.
Ice is completely pointless and without it you don't need refills
Ice keeps the soda cold throughout your meal.
In Europe my soda was often pretty close to room temperature by the time my food arrived. Not great if you like your beverages “ice cold”. But I get the impression Europeans don’t like their drinks as cold as we do in the US to begin with.
We also use larger glassware in the US, which offsets much of the volume displaced by ice.
So no, ice is not “completely pointless”, it’s just a cultural difference 🙂
Thinking of a typical US fast food soda cup: understatement. For comparison, a German McDonald's "Large" (the largest available) is 0.5 liters (17 oz). In the US, a "Medium" is 18 oz (0.53 l) or 21 oz (0.62 l) depending on who you ask, and, it goes to 30 (0.89 l) or 32 oz (0.95 l). And I've seen complaints that Wendy's shrank their large from 40 oz (1.18 l) to 35 oz (1.04 l). That's not a cup, that's a bucket!
A sit down restaurant in Europe will typically have soft drink serving sizes from 0.2 to 0.4 liters. The 0.2 is... unsatisfactory.
I just usually order 2 or 3 right away when I see that shit. What am I, an ant?
Ice holds it at 0°C though. For drinks that are delicious at 0°C but aren't as good at 5°C, that ice makes a big difference, especially if you've got a cup that's supposed to last 10+ minutes outdoors.
I drink 2 pitchers of tea with a meal. I will need refills with or with out ice in my glass.
Have you considered that that may be a lot of tea?
🤔 maybe
According to Google, 1 pitcher has a volume of 1.89 liters. If we assume they're mostly full (1.8l), that would be 3.6l of tea. It's recommended that you don't drink more than roughly 1l per hour.
You either eat very slowly, or you're doing bad things to your body.
It's a thing cause its not really as normalized, people don't really drink enough to get free refills in some places (although many places have free refills) and people here are generally used to warmer colas, although many people and places do add ice
Fountain drink: Depends on the restaurant. Some Burger Kings and McDs did have it, some removed it (probably exploited)
I don't want ice in my damn soda or ice.
If you like it, ask the staff for some. They will usually give it to you.
So dang euro you don't even want ice in your ice.
lmao. I meant to writer water but accidentally wrote something way better. Keeping that now.
Idk about Berlin, but I’m from the french riviera and we do put ice cubes everywhere.
Fait trop chaud dans le sud, c'est pr ça.
And by "everywhere" you mean in the pastis.
Indeed. The
is the best seller when it comes to beverages in France. More than the bottled water Cristaline. Isn’t that surprising
McDonalds did refills for a while but then stopped again, idk why ¯\(ツ)/¯
I don't know for Germany but free soda refills are illegal in France
Why?
Why does France seemingly propose/executes the worst and/or weirdest things.
This is almost on this level: https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2023/06/26/france-browser-website-blocking/
Because sugary drink are one of the leading cause of obesity, so rather than inciting people and children to drink more soda it's much healthier to offer free water and paid drinks.
With the same idea vending machines with soda or sugary snacks are not allowed in schools anymore.
On the other hand everything that France government is doing around internet and privacy law is pure nonsense, I agree with that.
I'm a fucking fiend for ice in my water, like I literally will fill the cup full of ice first, then put water in the space that's left. When I visited Europe it was fucking rough getting used to never having ice. And if you asked for it (which I tried not to do, but I caved a few times) they'd give you like 3 cubes
I absolutely hate ice in my drinks and have to always request it without or it gets added, this is in the UK
I see I've met my opposite
Ice cubes kinda suck.
But some places in the US have crushed ice and it's seriously the nicest thing ever.
Or the fact that you have to pay for fucking water. It's a God damned human right but you have to pay the same for water as any other drink at restaurants in Europe. By the glass. And the glasses hold exactly one to two mouthfulls of water.
I mean, it might just be a rumor but I hear that instead of being born with arms, Europeans are born with baguette extremities. They nibble on their baguette arms throughout the day, and they grow back while they’re sleeping.
Nah that's just the french, they're a little weird. Us germans got normal pretzel arms
Do the Swiss have cheese arms?
Yes and quite predictably Italians have pasta fingers.
Do Belgians have waffle ears?
Not a doctor and not familiar with Belgians sorry.
Chocolate
Lutefisk I heard...
I thought they were steins filled with Paulaner.
I met up for lunch with a buddy and his partner who was visiting from Europe. I mentioned that I drink a lot of water and asked for a refill, they asked if water was free.
Typically they ask you for still or sparkling while dining and they charge in Europe. In London, I typically just say, "tap". They had to legally serve it.
Yeah, tap water is something you can ask for basically everywhere and its free, bonus if it's in a place with amazing tap water
Now that's an intriguing idea: who has amazing tap water?
Scotland.
well I don't know but fun fact: Tallinn and the district of nõmme in Tallinn have separate tap water systems
It depends on the country, in Greece it's usually free, maybe in touristy places or if you order bottled water you will be charged, but otherwise most places will give you cold tap water for free.
I think it's legally required to give tap water for free mostly everywhere, but if you don't specify it they might sneak in an outrageously expensive bottle of mineral water, it's basically a way to scam tourists.
In Italy they don't, Italians are weird like that. It's also a country where nearly everyone doesn't trust their tap water and buy water in plastic bottles...
I know that a short visit doesnt give great insight into a place, but the following 2 things were very striking to me when visiting:
1 - the smoking.. i found it disturbing just how many people were smoking 2 - the graffiti. I was surprised by just how much graffiti there was. Do people not take pride in their property enough to wash it off? I know Graffiti is common everywhere, but it seemed to be on a whole other level in europe.. like it wasnt just on the back alleys, but on the front facades of buildings too. The front door of one of my airbnbs was covered in graffiti.
There was 1 thing though that was totally the opposite though & made total sense... the dual function windows (where you turn the handle 1 way to open them like a door & another way to lean them in to provide ventilation. These were everywhere & i found them to be the most functional thing ever! I wish they would catch on in the usa.. with that said, the first time i discovered this functionality, it was accidental. I panicked as i thought i broke the window lol.
The graffiti thing kills me. Washing it off is a waste, it will be vandalised again quickly. Think this way, repaint properly a wall takes time and money, to draw a cartoonishly large cock takes seconds and costs pennies. So many places chose to allow selected artists do some good stuff as it’s a better deterrent.
Psst there is a third way to just provide ventilation, where you put the handle in a 45 degree angle upwards.
You monster
You know that meme with Jesus about how they hated him for speaking the truth?
Imagine that please.
The smoking absolutely kills me, as someone with asthma who has gotten very used to the fact that most things in the US are non-smoking now. It felt like there was a cloud of smoke basically everywhere I went in France and, to a lesser extent, England.
No disabled access almost everywhere, even in newer buildings.
This is one thing I think America has done right, the ADA is so nice for people with disabilities. I want everyone to be able to experience everything so having the ADA being strong is perfectly okay with me. And I think both sides agree, everyone will get old someday!
Bear in mind, this is relatively recent in the US too. It's culturally connected with both the civil rights movement of the 1950s-1960s, and to the respect that Americans (sometimes) express for war veterans.
This really depends on the place, but yeah some places have pretty awful mobility, like there's a path next to my house with stairs and no ramp on it
Inwinder where in Europe it's like this. Where I've been most places are accessible
How do they put up with the lack of mass shootings ?
Growing up without the adrenaline rush when crossing school’s gates is indeed a tragedy. Heckin boring
Yeah wheres the excitement
It's like the abortion lottery with the most corrupted poor States working hard to enslave women's bodies to their institutionalized meat lottery of school shootings and miserable impoverished existence all to feed the insatiable appetite of the parasitic billionaires. How can those Europeans really live without getting to experience the Grand Republican Hunger Games.
It largely depends on the European nation. Even as a non-native, I don't tend to lump them all in one judgment, just as Europeans shouldn't lump all Americans in one judgment. Every American state is different. Reply to this comment with a European country and I'll share the thing about it that I understand the least.
The Netherlands
That's what I'm saying, the UK and Bosnia for example are very different places
Belgium
As a Dutch person, a bit off topic, but some truth in television that I found funny:
The Belgians' relationship with fries.
Last summer I was at a former military camp in the German hills, managed by Belgium when it was still operational, and we had a Belgian tour guide who'd served in the camp when it was active. He joked that the Belgian conscripts serving in that camp still got fries thrice a week, or they'd have a riot.
The lack of a feeling of equal opportunity the secessionists all have for each other. If one group has the right to leave, I'd think all do.
Czechlands.
The thing I understood the least about the Czechlands is why Czechoslovakia didn't have one identity (for a lack of a better way to put it). Like it always seemed like a compound of two places, as opposed to a singular distinct body.
Self defense laws are pretty weird in Europe. I am spoiled on our second amendment laws, so let my bias be noted.
However, some guy can break into your house and if you defend yourself with a bat or knife, the laws there from what I hear (this isn't fact, I could be mistaken) can get you in trouble with the law. I remember reading that somewhere.
Sure it's like that in the US too but there are many protections for those who clearly have acted in self defense.
I think the difference is welf defense in Europe is defending your person, not your property. If someone breaks in, you don't have the right to hurt them. You call the police. If they were trying to attack you or you alerting them to your presence makes them come for you, then of course you can defend yourself.
Self defence is just that. Defence of the self.
One thing that your 2a right also means is that your criminals are likely to be armed. Ours are less likely to be and certainly much less likely for petty crime. The police in Ireland, for instanc, don't carry guns.
If someone breaks into my house. I'm not approaching them with hugs. I'm calling the police and grabbing a golf club or poker or similar.
This guy is extremely conservative and a former cop. (He doesn't fly his politics, but you can tell.) He has testified in dozens of deadly force trials as an expert witness. Here's what he has to say about defending property. Very eye opening.
“In the anti-gun Spokane newspaper, internet comments indicated that many people had the clueless idea that Gerlach had shot the man – in the back – to stop the thief from stealing his car. One idiot wrote in defense of doing such, “That ‘inert property’ as you call it represents a significant part of a man’s life. Stealing it is the same as stealing a part of his life. Part of my life is far more important than all of a thief’s life.”
Analyze that statement. The world revolves around this speaker so much that a bit of his life spent earning an expensive object is worth “all of (another man’s) life.” Never forget that, in this country, human life is seen by the courts as having a higher value than what those courts call “mere property,” even if you’re shooting the most incorrigible lifelong thief to keep him from stealing the Hope Diamond. A principle of our law is also that the evil man has the same rights as a good man. Here we have yet another case of a person dangerously confusing “how he thinks things ought to be” with “how things actually are.”
As a rule of thumb, American law does not justify the use of deadly force to protect what the courts have called “mere property.” In the rare jurisdiction that does appear to allow this, ask yourself how the following words would resonate with a jury when uttered by plaintiff’s counsel in closing argument: “Ladies and gentlemen, the defendant has admitted that he killed the deceased over property. How much difference is there in your hearts between the man who kills another to steal that man’s property, and one who kills another to maintain possession of his own? Either way, he ended a human life for mere property!” ― Massad Ayoob, Deadly Force - Understanding Your Right To Self Defense
Self defense is of course allowed, but only so far as to prevent harm. It also needs to be adequate to prevent the harm the attacker tried to inflict. So shooting someone who entered isn't okay, you could've just held the gun at them. Which isn't relevant cause you don't have a gun and neither do they, most likely.
Man catchers should become more common.
Same bias as yourself. I find it stunning that the British police are so proud of the pocketknives they confiscate.
Yeah it's weird to see butterknives on public sites being confiscated as they're clearly a dangerous weapon. But surprisingly knife crime is really low compared to most of the world (yes I mean America)
America has a violence problem. Take away all the gun violence and we're still worse than other developed countries.
Why some of them seem downright gleeful about every American shortcoming or perceived shortcoming.
As if we don't do the same between the states.
You're allowed to pick on your siblings.
I consider Americans like distant cousins. Not as closely related as neighbouring countries but still part of the family.
Because its funny
Gives a sense of superiority
Half of these posts are just inverse statements trying to shit on America. Very boring.
Why do you have so many measurement units for car engine power?
Like, with HP and kW is enough.
PS is Pferdestärke, which is just horsepower in German. I think CH is the same in French, and CV... Italian? So maybe the other ones also all mean HP. I don't know why they put all of them there, but maybe it's because since it's not a SI unit, there is no official abbreviation everyone knows.
Edit: Just looked it up and I was wrong, they are actually different units, even though horse related. Even HP (747.7 W) and PS (735.5 W) are slightly different. What a mess, that's why we need SI units.
With the inevitable arrival of electric cars, i bet that [kW] will be the new standard for engine power.
They already are.
The same way food packaging must mention the calorie content in joules and kcal is optional, cars have to be advertised with watt.
It has been for a while, horsepower is a legacy unit. Taxes and whatever are based on the kW value.
Taxes?
In some countries, your yearly car registration taxes are proportional to how much horsepower and pollution it generates.
We can only hope. A unifying measurement is the first start to cross cultural understanding and appreciation!
Well, I just ended up looking up horse power. So there's metric horse power, mechanical horse power, brake horse power. Most of the ones in your picture are some kind of horse power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower
I'm not American but i've worked in Western Europe. I don't know why but there seems to be a lot of taxes for everything. You have to get govt permission for everything. People seem to rely on the govt to provide things rather than have some agencies fill niches that aren't filled by the govt (for example I saw signs like don't help homeless people, the govt is helping them).
I'm from an Asian country, we don't have much tax, we don't rely on the govt for anything (we can't), and we have many NGOs. I think it's similar in America.
As an Asian, there are a few things I can note about Europeans.
Europeans seem to have lost their sense of traditions, to me as an Asian it doesn't make sense since keeping our traditions and values is a huge part of our culture and society.
Europeans also accept blame for bad things they did in the past (which is a good thing) but I think they can go overboard to compensate for that (to their detriment). I don't think accepting blame for things in the past is a thing that's done in Asia; we rewrite history instead. It would help if we acknowledged what we did and can have better relations with others moving forward.
Europeans identify more with nationality than ethnicity. For example, someone from Czech Republic moving to France is considered French. In North America I think they would be considered Czech-French. In Asia they would be considered to be a Czech expat living in France. Our ethnicity matters a lot.
Most (but not all!) Europeans consider NGOs to be undemocratic, whereas the government is (theoretically at least) under democratic control.
But at what point would you stop doing so? I'm Dutch yet can trace back my ancestry to the 16th century in Belgium and northern France, what ethnicity do I have? And some have an even longer and more dispersed pedigree.
Also, you gave the example of French but what is now called France was made up from a large variety of ethnicities. Being French then is not defined as being a particular ethnicity but as belonging to the French Republic. It's a cultural thing that matters a lot to them.
what does it mean that europeans consider NGOs to be undemocratic?
if your ancestry is from belgium/north france then you would be belgian/french with dutch nationality. I suppose when we refer to France we mean French before the 19th century immigration.
It differs a bit where I'm from. I have a friend from Malaysia who identifies as "Tamil-Malaysian" (Tamil being the ethnic group and Malaysian being the country). In HK we have a lot of ethnic minorities. Speaking frankly, if you look chinese, you would be considered HKer right off the bat, if you look any other skin colour (white, other asian, etc) you will be considered a foreigner living in HK even if your family has been there for generations. Here is a video i found as an example where some Indians who were born and raised in HK struggle to be seen as HKer
An NGO has its own policies and its own governance, which may or may not align with the wishes of the wider populace (for instance, a religious NGO in a secular society, or an NGO treating particular groups preferentially). A majority disagreeing with the policies of that NGO would achieve nothing, whereas with a governmental body they could exert democratic control.
Why? Good grief, do you have any idea how complicated that would be? Secondly, I don't identify with that ethnicity you're foisting upon me at all!
Why? As I said: France was always a mixture of ethnicities, the 19th century didn't change anything other than the skin colour of some of the French citizens (or is that what you're hinting at?).
For me personally, someone being Dutch is based more on their attitude towards the Netherlands and other Dutch people: anyone who is loath to run into other Dutch people when abroad and who loves to complain about specific stupid policies of the Dutch government counts as Dutch to me.
Excluding people based on how they look, irregardless of what else (intelligence, special talents) they bring to the table, is widely considered to be racism and not acceptable in European society. I'm sure there are Europeans who think like you do, however, it's not something that wider society considers acceptable (not to mention can be illegal).
"France's population dynamics began to change in the middle of the 19th century, as France joined the Industrial Revolution. The pace of industrial growth attracted millions of European immigrants over the next century, with especially large numbers arriving from Poland, Belgium, Portugal, Italy, and Spain.[10] In the wake of the First World War, in which France suffered six million casualties, significant numbers of workers from French colonies came. By 1930, the Paris region alone had a North African Muslim population of 70,000. Right after the Second World War, immigration to France significantly increased. During the period of reconstruction, France lacked labor, and as a result, the French government was eager to recruit immigrants coming from all over Europe, the Americas, Africa and Asia. "
This is what i'm referring to (the quote is from wikipedia). People from Poland, Belgium, Portugal, Italy, Spain, North Africa, Asia, and Africa would be considered French to a French person right? but to us they are expats who've moved to France. We wouldn't consider them French necessarily.
Yes, this is the kind of thing that seems distinctly European to me.
ethnic minorities being segregated/excluded is a separate issue (this ties with being able to speak Cantonese, govt policies for education, etc.). I wouldn't say that ethnic minorities/skin colour minorities are excluded from things in society per se, it's that they are viewed as foreigners and not "real HKers". Racism is very much a thing in Asia, i would say more so from older generations, i think younger generations are more open minded and understanding.
Thanks for the other explanations as well
In a democracy power should allways be held by the people. If you have a NGO -even when it does very good things- there allways is a danger that it could go against the peoples ideals or even their interests. You (as in the people as a whole) are also not as soverign when relying on NGOs for basic societal needs like a social saftey net as the voluntary donations founding them could stop any time. Thereby the power is transfered the donors (althought luckily most small-mid sized donors do not really exercize that power) who are mostly the wealthy as they just have more money to spend. A better solution is taxing fairly and using the common found gained throught that in a way the majority decides.
I recently watched an interesting video from Adam Conover on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cu6EbELZ6I. Altgought I do not agree with everything said (I don't think the Patagonia nonprofit in particular is problematic in my opinion the focus should have been set even more on the issue of something like that beeing possible) I agree with the key message for the reason provided above.
isn't this the same reasoning for govt though? politicians will say one thing for votes and do another thing. If anything it's worse to trust a govt who will more likely go against people's interests. At least an NGO has a stated aim.
not really. In an ideal democracy you could simply vote those people out in the next election . In a well working democracy there is only so much they can do before they are not reelected.
The difference to NGOs is that in a democracy one person (ideally) has exactly one vote while your influence on non profits -especially when you are wealthy enought to afford your own- is mkreso connected to what you (can) donate, so how wealthy you are. In my opinion that makes relying on government more egalitarian whereas a system built on charities is more seceptable to oligarchigal structures.
(I understand that in many places Governments are (very) currupt or not democratic to begin with and there are many NGOs that are democratic (or meybe just plain better for the interests of the people) compared to those governments. And in those cases these NGOs are -for now- obviously better then the government. But imo with a stable democracy the government is a fairer morer stable and more equal solution.
Dutch here. Yeah, nah, we don't. Maybe some lip service is being made towards the descendants of enslaved peoples in Surinam, but otherwise not really.
When I was young the period when the Dutch VOC flowered was taught as having been a really good thing, something that we could be proud of; the fact that this was accompanied by more than one episode of mass murder was entirely glossed over. I'm pretty sure it's still mostly like that.
Definitely not true for Germany.
For the shit they did? Who was alive 2 centuries ago? And taking responsibility for past actions is a huge thing in the Netherlands for at least since the past 5-10 years.
2 centuries? European colonialism continued well into the mid 20th century. There are still people alive who directly participated in them. Besides that, even thought most alive today did not participate directly they still benifit immensly from the colonial past of their countries as anouther comment allready mentioned.
And taking responsibility has been very slow/late and limited, often being limeted to apologies without reperations. The Belgian Crown for example only apologized for its involvement in forced labor and exploitation in the Congo three years ago. Germany only recognized its genocide in Namibia two years ago and refuses to pay reperations.
So yes for the shit they did (or bear a responsibility for if you wanna be more percise).
2 centuries? European colonialism continued well into the mid 20th century. There are still people alive who directly participated in them. Besides that, even thought most alive today did not participate directly they still benifit immensly from the colonial past of their countries.
And taking responsibility has been very slow/late and limited, often being limeted to apologies without reperations. The Belgian Crown for example only apologized for its involvement in forced labor and exploitation in the Congo three years ago. Germany only recognized its genocide in Namibia two years ago and refuses to pay reperations.
The wealth of the colonial countries is entirely due to wealth extracted from the colonies. If they don’t want the responsibility, they should also give away all their wealth.
You can’t have one and not the other.
Either a free consciousness or the stolen wealth.
Uh huh. Go away and come back when you're done with slogans and want to have an actual conversation based in reality.
Yes, certain countries have taken quite a bit of wealth and discussion can be had about that.
Claiming that these countries got all their wealth "from the colonies" and need to give it all back is just just not true and disingenuous and poisoning the discussion
For starters, I couldn't find any bugles. But I did spend a month or two over there and a few hotels had these weird showers where there was only a half pane of protection abridged to the wall. So the shower head pointed away from the coverage and there was no curtain! Every shower seemed to be just flooding the bathroom and not be in the tub. Either that or I'm an idiot. I will equally accept both scenarios
The bastards stopped selling them in Canada too.
I miss my crunchy finger hats.
Several hotels just have poorly "designed" bathrooms. Often it's more like they tried to fit the current style somehow into the existing rooms.
When done correctly, water will stay in a certain area without sprinkling or even flooding everything else.
There's loads of Bugles everywhere I've been, we even have stuff to put in them.
Can you find an example picture of the shower situation? I'm intrigued.
Sounds like they're describing this kind of thing:
https://images.homedepot-static.com/productImages/313e04cf-42d6-4005-b09f-0eb74ae806a6/svn/dreamline-bathtub-doors-shdr-3148586-04-64_1000.jpg
If you're putting water all over the floor when using a shower like this one, it's definitely user error.
I'm not OP but the picture I found is far from the worst offender, I rented somewhere for a while where the top of the screen door wasn't close to being as tall as me or the shower. It really isn't as simple as people just being stupid.
Yeah I can definitely agree some are much worse! I was just referring to the specific one in this picture.
In my old apartment in the Netherlands the shower was literally just going to the floor and the entire bathroom was a "wet room", the drain wasn't even under the shower but in another corner. It was weird but actually I loved it, cleaning the place was so easy, just get naked, scrub with cleaning products and then rinse the entire room down with the showerhead.
More specifically Nordic countries I guess, but surstromming. I understand even amongst them it's a niche delicacy but just fermented gelatinous fish doesn't sound like something that would be enjoyable to eat.
That's not "Nordic countries", that is just Sweden.
Why is Opel still a thing when Vauxhall is clearly the better brand?
Tiny things, like tiny doorknobs, tiny stairs cases, tiny doors, tiny houses, tiny cars, and a tiny say in government legislation, etc.
And all the smoking! Eek. And we thought we had a drug problem in the USA. I've never seen so many people addicted to nicotine in my life when I've been there. It's everywhere. No thank you, I don't want to inhale nasty odor while eating my lunch. Jeez, WTF?
The rest I understand, but tiny doorknobs and tiny say in legislation? Can you elaborate? I thought door knobs were a US thing and Europe had mostly handles. And what is different in terms of say in government? Do you mean the states' direct democratic votes?
wat
I can't think of anywhere in Europe where it is legal to smoke in restaurants.
Also the rest of your descriptions sound not based on actual personal experience but on memes from the internet.
I'd rather have smokers than opioid addicts, but to each their own
Tbh I’d rather have a nicotine problem than a crack problem. Never seen so many crackheads than in the US. It seems to be also quite a problem in the UK/Ireland, but in France it’s really uncommon. There are a few places in Paris but that’s about it.
Something that always stands out to me is the roll-down window coverings. It's not that they don't make sense to me. In fact, they could be very advantageous here in the US in rough areas. It's just that they are everywhere including in seemingly low crime areas in Europe. Someone could make a killing here in the states marketing these things.
It's usually not for security but for insulation. External cover with the window behind is the best possible cover against the sun, and it's also good against the cold. It covers sound too.
In my area we use them mostly to keep the sun out. It's getting less effective with climate change so most of my neighbours have been installing air-conditioning as well, at least for the bedroom.
I worked for a European smarthome company trying to expand into North America, and I put quite a bit of effort into selling the concept to Americans.
External shades and shutters are easier to install, easier to hardwire (no batteries or remotes requires), they save significant energy because they keep the sun outside of the glass, and they can be automated to track the sun throughout the day. Internal motorized shades all suck for the same reason, because they have to be whisper quiet and wireless.
The biggest hurdle is the frequency with which Americans buy and sell homes. Hardwired automated anything is a permanent installation, while every realtor in America will tell you to remove window treatments when selling because buyers might not like the fabric. Europeans tend to live in their homes much longer, and don't buy and sell homes like hermit crabs changing shells.
That explanation actually makes so much sense. I've always wondered why shutters aren't a thing in the US.
In Europe (at least southern Europe), because every house has shutters, they're just not seen as something you personally own or that you find ugly/needs replacing. When you move houses you're just moving to another house with shutters so it's not even a factor you think about.
They are not common everywhere in Europe sadly! But they are not just for protection, they are also used instead of thick curtains for darkening the room (my gut feeling tells me that they are more common in the southern European countries).
How much they personally hate/dislike us.
How racist they are but have no idea they are.
How stuck in tradition they are.
I have to kind of disagree with the last point. We have no caste systems, culinary arts are pretty non important, and usually if people want something new they will go to a specialized restaurant. How did the USA change their culinary arts in the past 30 years?
Construction, it did change, and it is constantly changing. We used to use just bricks, now we use porous concrete, and wooden is becoming interesting aswell. We are not building skyscrapers because they are ugly.
Or am I wrong? I am from Czechia.
I've literally never once met any single person that "hated" Americans, and everyone who's ever met an American says they're lovely, just like us
The best theory we can come up with is that Americans are taught from a young age that their country is the best, and no-one should be allowed to say otherwise. Hence, even the slightest criticism is seen as hate.
Europeans, however, are raised on the belief that self-deprecation is a fuckin art
Not so much here, but you couldn't go more than a couple minutes on reddit without reading some comment on how America is a third world shithole.
English speaking reddit, yes.
If you visit /r/de for example, you'll find that everyone is complaining about Germany being a shit hole country. It's simply unfortunate, if you don't speak a second language, you never get good insight into how people view their own country.
I grew up in Alaska. I live in Germany.
This is becoming increasingly common is cars produced around the world. I'm a huge fan of it, personally.
I have no idea what this means. Wouldn't the door always be closed if it's locked?
Being unable to lock the car door while it's open contributed to a German car I owned in the USA being stolen. A family member thought the lock was broken and left it unlocked.
I meant the inverse; if the door is closed, it cannot be opened from the outside without a key. American doors typically have a turnable doorknob on the outside and can be opened without a key unless deliberately locked.
I've only been to Germany (and technically Ireland but I was just changing planes there) and didn't really find anything to be too weird or different than what I know of living in California. The biggest thing was just how all the normal shops and restaurants closed fairly early (like 6pm) and there was a red light district that opened up around that time. They even had the thing where some of the establishments had naked dancing women in the windows so you can see them from the street. I never actually went in, but I walked the whole block nearly every night when I was there at 19 years old.
In Germany, you can be driving straight down a road and someone can pull out onto the road from a turn and you have to yield to them. It seems extremely dangerous. Also, stop lights are directly above you, instead of across the street so if you’re looking at the stop light you can’t really pay attention very well to the traffic in the intersection.
A lot of stuff makes a lot more sense but these two things seem illogical to me.
The stoplight thing is social engineering. They do it so that you're incentivised to stop where you're supposed to, not halfway into the intersection
I live in Germany and I have no idea what you're talking about for the first thing, maybe you mean yield-to-right in unmarked intersections or the priority road system? I'm not really sure. In either case you are just mentally inserting yield signs based on standard rules.
The stoplight thing I feel in my soul though. The amount of times I've had to stare out my sunroof to see the light above me because I stopped on the line instead of 20 feet before it.
Yeah I think that’s it. It’s just different in my country, so feels unnatural that’s all…works kind of the opposite I think, here the person turning yields to the straight traffic when it is not marked.
That rule also exists.
In general if you are the one to turn/leave your lane, you have to yield to everyone you would somehow cross. Also pedestrians, cyclists, etc. Which IMO also makes sense, since the one who turns knows that he will turn and can monitor his surroundings more closely than every other one affected.
Now what you spoke of earlier: if a crossing has no signs whatsoever, the rule is that you always yield to the one coming from your right. So unless there's someone on all four streets that lead to the crossing, it resolves itself. Otherwise one of them has to give up their right and let someone else throughs. The rule I mentioned before has still precedence.
This might be radical, but the way they view rights when compared to Americans. Europeans believe their rights are given to them by their government, and that the government can give our take them as they see fit, while Americans view their rights as immutable freedoms given to them simply for existing.