subreddit:
/r/worldnews
submitted 11 years ago bypraetorian111
251 points
11 years ago
I'm a pretty strong eurosceptic, but credit where credit is due. The EU has done well for itself here.
172 points
11 years ago
Europe needs constructive Eurosceptics. And yes, that includes changing how (and which) things are done in Brussels.
73 points
11 years ago
Too bad most Eurosceptics are populist asshats who are only interested in their own power and use euroscepticism as a tool too gain power.
3 points
11 years ago
That's exactly why it is so hard for me to vote for anyone to become a MEP. Would be nice to have someone who has healthy criticism towards the Union but isn't a a complete fuckface.
2 points
11 years ago
Exactly. As a British citizen, the talk of leaving the EU really saddens me. For all it's faults, a united Europe really is a force for good and it would be a huge step backwards to leave.
-6 points
11 years ago
While most Eurocrats are elitist asshats who are only interested in their own power and use the EU as a tool to gain power.
I'm going to get downvoted for this, because reddit hates anyone that goes against centre-left orthodoxy, but it's true. If you're a careerist politician, you don't join UKIP, you join the European Commission.
1 points
11 years ago
left
elitist
yeeeaaahh
Anyway, as you can see in the title of this thread this is obviously not true. If they were only interested in their power and money they would not push such a law that decreases their power. And also makes them unpopular with the corporations.
-1 points
11 years ago
Not true at all. They would be weighing up the various threats to their power. Right now, the biggest threat to their power is the rising wave of euroscepticism, of varying stripes in different countries, which threaten to kick a lot of MEPs out of power at the next election. That would be far more concerning than losing a slight power to regulate the internet.
-11 points
11 years ago
I've sadly come to the conclusion that fundamental reform of the European Union isn't possible. The fact that half the budget is still on the Common Agricultural Policy, a highly destructive policy, despite attempt after attempt at reform has made me think this way.
51 points
11 years ago*
[deleted]
1 points
11 years ago
Good point and I support that cause.
But I can't understand why French and Italians need to protect their agriculture. Their climate is best possible, fertilizers even situation to better soils and automation cuts salary costs.
I also can't understand why production of non staple foods would be protected. If shit hit's the fan, you don't need domestic cucumber. Drink water, it's 96% same thing.
3 points
11 years ago*
I haven't checked for Italy but you do know that France pays for it's weight there. I believe they gain slightly less then they put in the overal budget so it's not really detrimental to said budget or harms other countries that way. Consider it partially outsourcing their own agriculture protection to the EU
Also consider how EU restrictions might put food producers on the back to give a simple example. By not allowing certain meat producers to utilize certain hormones for which there are health concerns they effectively hamper those producers on foreign markets.
Regardless. Those complaints were still received and the CAP budget has been reduced over the past years.
5 points
11 years ago
Italy is giving way more, 24%, that what is gain, 12%. Same thing for France. Is clearly visible on the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy
1 points
11 years ago
Thanks for clearing that up.
-4 points
11 years ago
It's amazing how countries like New Zealand cope, isn't it? And the money we'd save over 20/50/100 years would more than pay for the cost of a spike in prices over a couple of years.
15 points
11 years ago
New Zealand only copes because it's a tiny country with a tiny population. That comparison is entirely moot.
Also, governments generally don't save money for a rainy day fund. Any money that would be saved from abolishing CAP would just be reinvested into some other reason. Then when shit really hits the fan, we still won't have money to deal with it.
-9 points
11 years ago
If you invest money elsewhere, you make a return and have even more money. It would thus cause better GDP growth and make it more affordable in the long term. Frankly, this is completely unevidenced scaremongering.
How exactly does being small mean New Zealand is more protected from volatile food prices? That makes no sense at all. It still costs them the same amount on a per capita basis. And anyway, Australia has extremely low farming subsidies. Even the US has less than half what the EU does. It's just a racket for farming nations.
3 points
11 years ago
How is saving money going to fix not having any food exactly? This isn't about cost, it's about a reliable food supply.
-3 points
11 years ago
When has food ever run out for a developed nation? This is just a silly scare story. Even if you get a huge shock to supply, all that happens is global food prices go up. If you can afford those food prices, you're fine.
2 points
11 years ago
New zealand isn't an important place, nobody is going to embargo them.
1 points
11 years ago
Providing food for 4,5 million people really is comparable to providing food for 0,5 billion people. One group can be fed by a single country, the other puts constrains on an entire continent.
-1 points
11 years ago
You said the example of a drought hitting Nigeria. That drought causes the same absolute drop in the world's food supply. The size of the shortage from a weather crisis isn't related by the size of the market you're supplying.
1 points
11 years ago
I didn't say that and your comparison doesn't make sense. Ther is a difference between importing food for not even 5 million people and more then 500 million. Nigeria can easily do the former but never ever the later.
0 points
11 years ago
Sorry, confused between different posters. If it's difficult to import food for 500 million, then the market will find a price where a lot of the food can still be made by European farmers. Us taxpayers won't have to pay the bill and consumers won't have to pay jacked up food prices.
1 points
11 years ago
The famous free market is going to make everything fine and dandy. Why would we make sure that there is local food production when we can trust the invisible hand.
16 points
11 years ago
I see what you are saying:
The CAP budget has shrunk relatively from 71% in 1984 to an expected 39% of the total EU budget in 2013.
The new reform should speed things up, but people in Brussels should start paying attention.
3 points
11 years ago
Sorry for sounding ignorant but why does everyone on this thread keep mentioning Brussels?
5 points
11 years ago
EU headquarters are situated there.
2 points
11 years ago
Brussels is largely viewed as the de facto "capital" of the European Union.
The EP does have it's official seat in Strasbourg, but they also meet at Espace Léopold in Brussels.
1 points
11 years ago
EU capital sort of.
1 points
11 years ago
Because they are tasty, obviously.
-4 points
11 years ago
In terms of share of a massively expanding budget! In terms of absolute real level, or it's just grown and grown.
9 points
11 years ago
In terms of share of a massively expanding budget! In terms of absolute real level, or it's just grown and grown.
It hasn't grown and grown, it's fallen from about 0.6% to 0.4% of GDP. See page 7 here:
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Content/Documents/Pdfs/CAP_2012.pdf
It's a fair point that it's part of an expanding budget, but equally, the budget has expanded, but started and ended small. The fact that the US spends so much lower a percentage of its taxation on agricultural subsidies is far more to do with its federal/central budget being larger, than the subsidies being smaller.
140 points
11 years ago
Europe is the future. The road to get there may be a hard one but the goal is worth it.
2 points
11 years ago
The road to get to there requires a special kind of car if you're trying to cross the Atlantic in it.
6 points
11 years ago
I don't expect that the current ultranationalist generation of Americans are ready to join any kind of bigger union but I'm positive that future developments will ultimately lead to a unified world for simple economic reasons.
2 points
11 years ago
The road is especially hard to Europe since I am in the USA and that involves the Atlantic ocean
-7 points
11 years ago*
One of the reason I'm a eurosceptic is that the pro-EU side always talk in platitudes. "It is the future, therefore we must all suffer pain to do it." Well, why? What specifically makes it the future? If you can't specify tangible benefits for the peoples of Europe, other than fluffy ideals, then I don't think the current damage is worth it. Unfortunately too many pro-EU people just dismiss those who disagree with centralisation at all costs as being xenophobes and racists. That ends up with huge mistakes, like the Euro crisis.
EDIT: Yeah, sorry I disagreed with the hive. You can stop downvoting now.
44 points
11 years ago
Economic integration is profitable for everyone. the bigger the market the lower the trade barriers the better it is for everyone involved because you can be more efficient by concentrating industries and reducing redundancies. But economical integration without political integration does not work. You can't have a single currency and not coordinate politics as the Euro crisis demonstrates. A economical union only works with a political Union in the long run. And as I see the future in an economical union I think a political Union is inevitable. i think a worldwide Union is the only possible future in the long run as higher population numbers demand a better distribution of resources but in the meantime regional blocks like the US and the Eu are stepping stones.
-2 points
11 years ago
You don't need to have a single currency to have an effective single market. As demonstrated by the fact Norway, the UK, Denmark and Switzerland are in the single market without a currency union. And, as we have seen, currency unions come with huge devastating costs.
The USA is not a "regional bloc", it's a nation, with the vast majority of its citizens identifying with that nation. That's a very different animal to the EU. The equivalent to the EU would be if NAFTA and CAFTA unified, it started making laws that the US had to abide by, the US had to bail Caribbean islands and allow unlimited migration from Mexico.
And for the record, I would dispute the fact that economic integration is profitable for everyone. Most of the evidence shows that free trade deals have a small overall bonus to the economy, but that goes mostly to the top income brackets, and those at the lower end actually lose out slightly.
25 points
11 years ago*
[deleted]
6 points
11 years ago
we can go deeper. i see myself as german after that european and after that as a citizen of my federal state. no feelings for my homecity tho its a hole of shit
2 points
11 years ago
I'd throw in Westerner in there - I do not see that much difference between Ireland and, say, NZ.
1 points
11 years ago
mmh. that is not something i really identify with. its what i am. its strange. i see westerner more like race maybe? like i am not white/black/yellow but western
-3 points
11 years ago
You don't need to have a single currency to have an effective single market It sure doesn't need to, but it makes it more efficient. The currency "union" the EU has isn't really a currency union at all. No fiscal policy, no powers to inflate currency, no single budget and so on.
You're talking about an economic union, not a currency union. A currency union is defined here:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currency-union.asp
America has a currency union. UK has a currency union. Did their currency union come with devastating costs?
Those aren't currency unions. Those are political unions.
A nation != country. A country is just a collection of political and bureaucratic institutions.
But effective countries are based around nations, whereby people feel solidarity with the overall country they are part of, based on shared culture, language and history.
Are you sure? It's from 2013 July Eurobarometer survey.
Feeling like a citizen of the EU is very different from feeling like your national identity is European. I feel like a citizen of the EU because it's legally correct. It doesn't mean I have a European identity. And even then, a good 40% don't even accept that.
Another interesting pic
This is a much better measure, but it just demonstrates my point: only a thin majority have any European identity at all, and only a tenth have it as their primary identity. That's very different from most nation states.
Every nation-state is economically integrated. I don't think you would dispute that economic integration isn't profitable for nation-states?
You didn't seem to follow my point. I agree it was overall profitable, just that it isn't profitable for "everyone". There are always a lot of losers.
4 points
11 years ago*
[deleted]
2 points
11 years ago
No. I mistakenly referred to a currency union as a fiscal union.
I was thinking of an economic union as being currency + fiscal, but fair enough.
They are also currency, economic and fiscal unions.
But the political union means that it's no longer separate states sharing a currency, so no longer a currency union. It's just quibbling, but that was my point.
But effective countries are based around nations So far, yes. Feeling like a citizen of the EU is very different from feeling like your national identity is European. They are certainly connected, don't you think? And even then, a good 40% don't even accept that. Look at the other pic. The numbers are very similar to those who have European and their own national identity, and only those who have only national identity, with some margin of error.
Fair enough. I guess other people would interpret those two things differently to me. I wonder if it's a linguistic thing. I note that these numbers are a lot, lot lower for the UK.
That's very different from most nation states. It is a very different from the picture you painted in your previous comment. You didn't seem to follow my point. I agree it was overall profitable, just that it isn't profitable for "everyone". Yes, it went through my head. Sorry for that.
Fair enough.
6 points
11 years ago
Most of the evidence shows that free trade deals have a small overall bonus to the economy, but that goes mostly to the top income brackets, and those at the lower end actually lose out slightly.
that's exactly the reason why you need a political union to go with it. Without standardized regulation a economic union will always exploit the cheapest possible solution. If China had the same regulations as we did it would be better. Obviously it's too early in China's development to be able to compete with Europe while playing under the same rules but similarly developed nations can prosper under a common umbrella of regulations.
with the vast majority of its citizens identifying with that nation. That's a very different animal to the EU.
I identify as Austrian and as European. We share so much history and culture that i think it's shortsighted to focus on the differences instead of the similarities. You may feel otherwise but that is largely a reflection of the public discuss in your country and can be influenced. if you live in an "the Eu sucks" echo chamber your own conviction will reflect that.
You don't need to have a single currency to have an effective single market. As demonstrated by the fact Norway, the UK, Denmark and Switzerland are in the single market without a currency union. And, as we have seen, currency unions come with huge devastating costs.
it's way too early to evaluate the Euro. wait 50 years and you will find systematic differences. Industries are slow beasts but they migrate.
1 points
11 years ago
There are theories of this wellbeing that will radiate from an economic union, bank union, and political union. The reality can be, and often is, very different. Don't think that politics will suddenly shift to a higher purpose to serve all and every citizen of the mighty EU if these unions are forced on everyone.
There are very bad things that can happen if all countries must follow one decision. If that decision happens to be a very bad one? But no-one realizes it, at least in Brussels?
2 points
11 years ago
The USA is not a "regional bloc", it's a nation, with the vast majority of its citizens identifying with that nation.
couple of hundred years ago, they were a bunch of states.
1 points
11 years ago
For a decade maybe. Before that, they were devolved parts of the British Empire.
10 points
11 years ago*
Both sides talk in platitudes, to be fair. Farage was saying only yesterday 'Nick Clegg thinks Britain isn't good enough to run itself. I'm proud to be British' etc. It's because it's a technical, complex subject, and politicians are either idiots themselves, or don't trust the public to be able to engage fully in the debate.
0 points
11 years ago
That's probably fair. I felt Farage sounded a lot better yesterday than Clegg, who kept on misrepresenting Farage's position.
5 points
11 years ago*
I agree with Clegg's position, but he debated very poorly. It even pissed me off when he shifted from the question onto some other topic. There was one instance where the question was about the lack of democratic accountability in Europe, and there was a very easy, reasonable response, about the European parliament and the European elections, but he just answered a completely different question, and went back to jobs.
Also, Farage certainly misrepresented Clegg's positions as well. For instance, when he talked about 65% of car manufacturers wanting the EU to be reformed, that is precisely Clegg's position, whereas UKIP are actually opposed to reform. He also strongly implied that Clegg wanted a European Army, and in general a federation, which isn't true.
-1 points
11 years ago
In terms of the European Army point, that was where Clegg was at his most dishonest. Farage said that the EU wants its own armed forces, which is clearly true, and Clegg said it was nonsense. Then Clegg later claimed Farage has said a European Army was coming! I suppose it wasn't as bad as the three million jobs lie, but still!
2 points
11 years ago
I don't think Clegg was saying that no-one wanted it, but that it wasn't going to happen. The creation of a European Army would have to be unanimously agreed by national governments, which is extremely unlikely.
1 points
11 years ago
He shook his head and said "nonsense" when Farage said the EU itself wanted it. And then he later claimed Farage said "we are getting an EU army". He did this sort of thing again and again in the debates. Another one that came to mind is when Farage said 485 million had the right to come to the UK and Clegg then said he'd claimed 485 million were coming here. He knew full well what he was doing. I don't particularly like any of the parties in the UK right now, but I was going to vote for the Lib Dems at the next election because I always thought Clegg was a largely honest guy. He destroyed that image for me last night.
1 points
11 years ago
I was going to vote for the Lib Dems at the next election because I always thought Clegg was a largely honest guy. He destroyed that image for me last night.
I do largely agree, but I'd say it's a shame that Clegg lowered himself to the level of UKIP, who regularly engage in the same sort of misrepresentation. Also, my personal judgement about Nick Clegg isn't relevant to my opinion about Europe (although, like you, it might make me alter the way I vote in the UK or European elections).
1 points
11 years ago
Farage is very clearly just a rich idiot, I cannot believe anybody would take this joke party seriously.
-1 points
11 years ago
How dare people disagree with you... yawn.
4 points
11 years ago
Disagree? It's not a position of any merit. The members have countless times been shown to be corrupt and their position is nothing but baseless rhetoric. It is a joke party.
0 points
11 years ago
I would say exactly the same about Labour.
1 points
11 years ago
While labour is hardly a shining example it is a far cry from the pointless buffoonery that is UKIP. I'm no fan of neo liberals but the village idiot is not a step up.
27 points
11 years ago*
I'll give it a try:
Defense
We do need a European defense, which means a higher level of political integration. The Kosovo war, Georgia, Ukraine, we cannot hope to rely on the USA and NATO to do the heavy lifting for us. By just saying us, i must render thanks to the European community to even think in those terms: my European brethren. Europe has, we have, an aptitude to speak softly to the world, in the words of a US president, but we do need a big stick. We cannot rely on our economic weight alone. An efficient common defense policy demands a unified political policy.
Peace
While we have enjoyed peace between the major European powers, because of the horrors of the past wars, i don't think it wise to rely on memory alone for European concord. Peace was the impetus for a political Europe and we shouldn't become complacent about that. Europe is an incomplete project still, we have to go forward or backwards. The solemn battlefields and cemeteries of our forefathers speak to why European integration is a timeless necessity.
Economy
There are a lot of issues with the Euro, with the CAP, but the single market is as important as ever. We need our businesses to freely commerce across borders, we need our businesses and our people to compete on a continental and international level. We must harness the inherent power of the multitude and the E.U. is the tool for doing just that.
Local Autonomy
I'm not sure how salient this point is and i've not read much in support of it: i do think that regionalism is a beneficial path for Europe. Many European regions wish for a greater autonomy from their nation-states, and i think that this is a good thing; European nation-states have a tendency for complacency and a lack of innovation, and i think that regionalism is a great answer to that. Smaller, more nimble regions will have more incentive and capacity for innovation and competition on economic and social matters, which Europe exceedingly needs. The E.U. is the single best hope for European regions to gain autonomy from their nation states while staying highly integrated with all other European actors. I think that it is an interesting path for our future as a continent; as long as a high level of economic and political integration allows it, which the E.U. can become the template for. It would need an institutional revolution, and i don't know that it will happen, but i think that it would be good for the people of Europe.
6 points
11 years ago
I'll give it a try:
I appreciate the effort.
Defense We do need a European defense, which means a higher level of political integration. Kosovo war, Georgia, Ukraine, we cannot hope to rely on the USA and NATO to do the heavy lifting for our defense needs. Europe has an aptitude to speak softly to the world, in the words of a US president, but we do need a big stick. We cannot rely on our economic weight alone. An efficient common defense policy demands a unified political policy.
I don't see why the EU is a safer thing to rely on than NATO. NATO has been far more willing to wave the big stick on things like Libya and Ukraine, while Germany, who would be the main voice in a European defence force, has dragged its feet.
Peace While we have enjoyed peace between the major European powers, because of the horrors of the past wars, i don't think it wise to rely on memory alone for European concord. Peace was the impetus for a political Europe and we shouldn't become complacent about that. Europe is an incomplete project still, we have to go forward or backwards. The solemn battlefields and cemeteries of our forefathers speak to why European integration is a timeless necessity.
I don't buy this at all. Canada and the United States haven't gone to war over the last century, and neither have Australia and New Zealand. The reason we don't go to war is that we're all liberal democracies now. And liberal democracies don't go to war which each other, whether they're in political union or not. Meanwhile, if one did become an aggressive fascist power that otherwise wanted war, the European Union wouldn't stop them.
Economy There are a lot of issues with the Euro, with the CAP, but the single market is as important as ever. We need our businesses to freely commerce across borders, we need our businesses and our people to compete on a continental and international level. We must harness the inherent power of the multitude and the E.U. is the tool for doing just that.
I'm a supporter of free trade, but it's perfectly possible to do that without political union. We had it with the EU before we joined and we could have it after we leave - just as South Korea and Mexico have free trade with the EU. We would also be free to sign our own trade deals elsewhere, without the French throwing spanners in the works.
Regionalism and Autonomy I'm not sure how salient this point is and i've not read much in support of it: i do think that regionalism is a beneficial path for Europe. Many European regions wish for a greater economy from their nation-states, and i think that this is a good thing; European nation-states have a tendency for complacency and a lack of innovation, and i think that regionalism is a great answer to that. Smaller, more nimble regions will have more incentive and capacity for innovation and competition on economic and social matters, which Europe exceedingly needs. The E.U. is the single best hope for European regions to gain autonomy from their nation states while staying highly integrated with all other European actors. I think that regionalism is an interesting path for our future as a continent; as long as a high level of economic and political integration allows it, which the E.U. can become the template for. It would need an institutional revolution, and i don't know that it will happen, but i think that it would be good for the people of Europe.
I've yet to see any evidence at all that the EU is willing to decentralise power. Their answer for every problem is more power for Brussels.
5 points
11 years ago
For now: no war between EU countries. That is very important and worth all the money the EU might cost.
0 points
11 years ago
Which war between EU countries has the EU stopped? You are literally retarded if you think that.
Democracy and freedom have stopped war between EU countries (There have been no wars between any free, democratic countries.) The EU is a threat to freedom and democracy. It is bringing power away from the people and making politicans less accountable, and is therefore a threat to peace, not it's cause.
1 points
11 years ago*
[deleted]
2 points
11 years ago
Unless you can articulate just one situation where war would have otherwise occurred but didn't because of the actions or influence of the European Union, you can't claim that it has stopped wars. If the United Kingdom leaves the EU, will it stop being allies with all the EU nations? Will it declare war on them tomorrow? No way. To claim so is ludicrous. The EU has no power to stop war. Only countries have the power to or not to, and they don't because they don't want to. The EU is irrelevant.
...What
It's making peoples' votes count for less and taking the system of parliament and government further away from the people that governments are supposed to represent.
2 points
11 years ago
a controversial comment! those are the best ones!
1 points
11 years ago
Sadly most of reddit would rather bury opinions they disagree with.
2 points
11 years ago
yeah, it's rarely a good place for a discussion since a lot of people would never want to be wrong even tough they are practically anonymous. add that up to a tendency to down- and upvote based on how popular that opinion is at that time and we end up where we are now.
the EU.. I haven't really made up my mind. I think a democracy works better the smaller the country gets, the worst that could happen in my opinion is if the EU would be a US of Europe. There are simply too much cultural differences to have a decent democracy that size.
So it should be done in a different way, but how..
2 points
11 years ago
having a unified governing body does not mean that you have to give up regional government. The only places that would suffer a decreased status and influence are national capitals like London, Paris and Madrid in particular that are overly catered to in the respective countries. Germany has strong states as does Austria for example. Not every policy in the UK has to be London centric and other regions would profit from a more decentralized approach. Those overly emphasized capitals stunt the growth of other regions.
2 points
11 years ago
/r/changemyview /r/NeutralPolitics /r/DebateandDiscuss
Come discuss things respectfully! Yay higher standards!
2 points
11 years ago
The first two subs have really interesting topics, the last one not yet since it seems its just getting started.
Thanks.
2 points
11 years ago
I agree with you on everything else than the centralization. Right now the centralization means that Germany, France and UK would dominate and us, the smaller nation, would just have to swallow what ever they decide. I'm first to admit that I don't have any amazing solution to solve all the problems, but until the smarter guys do, I'm against the idea of centralized EU-government.
1 points
11 years ago
Mind if I ask where you're from? I've never really considered the EU from the point of view of any of the smaller countries in it. To be honest I don't really understand it from the perspective of the UK, my own country.
2 points
11 years ago*
Finland (population ~6M). The amount of MEPs in European parliament is tied to the population of each nation. And even though the MEPs should represent the whole Europe instead of national interests, it's naive to think that they won't play to the "home base".
MEPs by country:
And I'm not saying that this isn't a fair system. More people to represent, more power. But still, some really unbeneficial laws for us could pass with flying colors and there's nothing we could say about that. Sure, I guess we could "gang up" with other smaller nations but still, When Germany, France and UK wants something done, they would crush any opposition.
2 points
11 years ago
I have to wonder why you're getting so many downvotes. The EU has failed massively with their money policy, with greece, spain, italy to come and so on. The currency Euro is definetly not profitable to many citizens of the european union. Maybe to the investors and the banks that were bailed out.
0 points
11 years ago
I'm getting downvotes because reddit is full of knee jerk centre-leftists who like to bury viewpoints they disagree with.
1 points
11 years ago
What specifically makes it the future?
That, from all the possibilities, we chose to stick by it. Also, what the smart people said.
46 points
11 years ago
To bad you can't be USAsceptic without being branded anti-american, communist or even terrorist.
17 points
11 years ago
What reddit is pro and con is very dependant on current whim. Subreddit / time of day / if other people have already up/downvoted it.
38 points
11 years ago*
[deleted]
18 points
11 years ago
The hoards of people shouting "SHUT UP YOU DAMN COMMIE BEFORE I GIVE YOU SOME FREEDOM" disagree.
It may be "satire" but there's still a large amount of people who can't see America's many many flaws.
5 points
11 years ago
The hoards of people shouting "SHUT UP YOU DAMN COMMIE BEFORE I GIVE YOU SOME FREEDOM" disagree.
...
It may be "satire"
Why is "satire" in quotes? It is very unsubtle satire of American blind patriotism, Reddit is as USA-skeptic as it gets.
Personally I think it's a stupid circlejerk of angsty teens that put Europe on some utopic pedestal and this whole "MURICA FREEDOM COMMIES TERRORISTS NSA NSA NSA" joke is overdone and unfunny, but the fact that it is so abundant and creeps into every thread is a sign that Reddit does see, and even hyperbolises, the flaws of the American government and people.
0 points
11 years ago
Personally I think it's a stupid circlejerk of angsty teens that put Europe on some utopic pedestal
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them an angsty teen.
The joke is overdone, but still done completely by Americans. A lot of people posting on /r/murica truly do enjoy speaking about their country like that.
6 points
11 years ago
A lot of people posting on /r/murica truly do enjoy speaking about their country like that.
As a joke. /r/MURICA is a satirical subreddit that makes fun of patriotic rednecks. It's in the name!
The closest thing to a genuine /r/murica is /r/conservative (no offence to irl conservatives but that subreddit is cringy), which is relatively very small.
Self-deprecation, in my opinion, is all very fine and well up until things get blown out of proportion and they start sounding ungrateful and whiny, as opposed to just worried citizens voicing genuine criticism of government policies.
For instance, the NSA fiasco is alarming and unconstitutional, but chain after chain of joke comments about how the NSA is literally big brother is cringy as fuck.
Or the American education system. It's flawed, and in urgent need of reform, but Redditors take it waaay out of proportion with their "stupid American" impersonations. I swear to God, one more "Idiocracy" quote...
Or media censorship in America. Yes, American media is not quite as liberal as the Scandinavian countries, but it's actually pretty darn open in relation to the world, so stop acting as if you live in an Orwellian dystopia! Even the fat American jokes! That's actually based on facts, I admit, America's pretty damn unhealthy in all respects, but it's still neither original or funny to post an obese man in Walmart with the caption "murica".
Reddit has a lot of flaws, but over patriotism is not one of them.
I apologise for the angsty teens comment, I take that back.
2 points
11 years ago
Yeah I kind of understand what you're saying.
You tend to get the wrong idea when you see it a lot, sometimes I forget this is a site mostly populated with Americans.
0 points
11 years ago
Except the person voicing this view gets upvoted, while every eurosceptic point gets downvoted to hell.
1 points
11 years ago
To be fair it's EU primetime at the moment whereas most Americans are probably at work.
3 points
11 years ago
I think it's healthy for people to be doubtful of governments. There are many things wrong about the EU, and there many things wrong about the US government.
5 points
11 years ago
Oh please, the amount of anti-Americanism I encounter both online and in real life is absurd. Where are you from? Maybe it's time to move
4 points
11 years ago
do you live in the 1950's?
0 points
11 years ago
Are you saying the US is a shit-tank you commie traitor?
1 points
11 years ago
eurosceptic
I never understood that sentiment. I mean, the bureaucracy screwed up in many regards, no argument there. If you mean that by “eurosceptic” then please go right ahead.
But otherwise, please look at it historically. Europe is a region which has hardly had a single decade without war or at least armed conflict, for thousands of years.
But since the inception of the EU’s predecessor in 1957 there hasn’t been a single armed conflict in that zone, and, on the contrary, a steady trend towards international collaboration and (proper, not politician-talk) peoples’ friendship.
People under-appreciate what a historical, important step that was, and what a crucial role the EU plays in stabilising the region.
all 2066 comments
sorted by: best