Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "The Atlantic" channel.

J. Leonie Problem is America isn't designed for that. In suburbs, because everything is spread out, you either have a car or you're fucked. Kids can't get on a bus to meet their friends, they need to ask parents to set up a "playdate." Then, when they finally learn to drive, there are no good places to go to. It's either city (downtown is fine, but Chicago's center, for instance, is surrounded by ghettos and muggings are common) or suburbs (nothing but housing). The United States lacks places to enjoy. You either live or work. No places for kids to develop. It's hell.
47
@bez1196 That's not inherent to gaming, though. Every community will have its share of addicts, just look at football- you know how many people neglected their family life to watch the Big Game and its reruns every day? The only miniscule difference is that, to experience the 'real thing' (i.e. stadium instead of tv) you have to get up and go out with friends, whereas it's harder to do that with gaming because e-sports stadiums are sparse. For now.
42
Right, but when it's a cultural trait (not because "life is just better here," that's a crock of shit), it loses all value. How am I supposed to know if someone really is sincerely welcoming if everyone smiles? (I'd like to note that passive-aggressiveness is a much bigger thing in the U.S. than other parts of the world.) That's not to say Americans aren't more welcoming- I've found that they're more open (and seem more excited in general) to meet new people, and the smile comes par for the course with that, but having it as a widespread, socially accepted habit begs the question: What face do I make when I want to let someone know I'm truly happy?
24
@50centpb7 Did you not watch the video? The "family" as you're describing it is an entirely postwar phenomenon. Tribes didn't send their most able-bodied members off to be on their own. If the family "died," I say good riddance. Restrictive family values are reminiscent of the stone age— or rather, of the 1950's and nothing more. It wasn't sustainable. The surplus of labor you're describing didn't come from women— it came from foreign countries. America was never going to stay the only manufacturing juggernaut, so when cheaper labor arose, the first American jobs to go were manufacturing and low-skilled service. The amount of goods and services devoted to each single "family" could not last. Also, if you think that the '50s were great ("traditional" values, freedom, suits) the '60s were bad (feminism, free love, "chaos"), then I get a strong impression you weren't actually around for those decades. Too simplistic of a view.
19
@50centpb7 Other way around. People don't get paid enough, so the woman has to work, too.
18
Maniesh Ramanayake Don't be so zealous, you're exactly what scientists try to avoid. Just because something isn't reviewed yet doesn't mean it's false. Much like proponents of the 'free-market,' scientific research doesn't exist in a vacuum. In the real world, everyone needs money, and repetition studies are the least likely among scientists to be conducted, because it doesn't make headlines. For example, for 40 years, Americans were fooled into believing that sugar was healthy and fat was unhealthy. This research was supported by peer-reviewed, double-blind studies from Harvard. It was later discovered that these studies had been funded by the Sugar Association, and the data was tampered with. It was completely indistinguishable from quality research. And in any case, logically speaking, as with most modern amenities (like "arch support" for your shoes), they aren't needed. How did people live before baths? Wouldn't the smell have been too horrible for people to stand, as is suggested by history? Something must have neutralized it.
13
I'd like to point out that the earliest mention of Europeans by societies that had historically used baths (Kievan Rus, Chinese) were that they smelled awful. Mostly because of the Catholic belief that bathing was a sinful act of vanity. I'm certain it's better to have dirt on you than not, but too many people are used to no scent at all.
10
Economy =/= quality of life. Which makes it even more funny that conservatives love to talk about the economy being good, even when it's not good for them.
4
There are plenty of examples. His quote, "the press is the enemy of the people," is literally copied from Stalin and Mao. He's threatened reporters, his aides have kicked reporters out for giggling at comments made during briefings, and during his campaign trail: "knock the crap out of 'im, would ya?" Need I say more? He hates it when people oppose him, and is very vocal about it. At the end of the day, he's your textbook insecure person, making up for it by being as loud as he can. Feel free to reply if you want more examples- there's a laundry list of them.
2
thatcoolkidjoey There comes a point when living within your means isn't possible. Unless you're comfortable with eating McDonald's everyday to make ends meet (at which point I am confident in calling the U.S. a garbage country), you're likely to have the same complaints when it affects you. You're totally right that we shouldn't but stupid shit, but the fact that healthy food costs a lot more than junk is a problem. It affects your performance at work and your mood. It should be fixed.
2
@dianarosalindland1566 Perhaps, but the vast majority of people who've transitioned stay that way, and their brains pre-scan are more similar to that of the opposite sex, than the one to which they physically belong. There are plenty of people who are just confused, but that isn't evidence that transgenderism as a whole is fraudulent. Again, most people who transition, happily stay.
2
Problem is, developers only care about profits, so they're going to gravitate towards luxury condos as often as possible. Past a certain point (without government subsidies) family-sized apartments/duplexes/townhouses lose their profitability. Basically, we need to extend the same help to constructing a livable society as we do to coal miners, farmers, and the military. Which is doable.. if the Republican Congress all suddenly died
2
Chipmunk Absolutely. The name of the game is scarcity. We're hardwired to look for anything of value, because our ancestors survived thanks to it (a rare piece of food, a hiding spot, etc). Anything valuable that is produced in limited quantities is something humans will chase— this is also where greed stems from. Money is valuable, but there is only so much of it, so everybody wants more. Games and websites operate the same way. The weapons you buy aren't even real, but because (in the context of the game) they're valuable, and not everyone can get them, you go after them. Such is addiction.
1
@yuppers1 You're right, and my original post was a little general. That being said, as far as I can tell, it's a waste of time to do that. If people can tell that you're not genuine, (so there's not even a "reputation" argument anymore), why do it? It apparently doesn't mask emotions very well, and being seen as fake is a guarantee, so what's the function?
1
It's Russia's most Westernized city. The mindset there is different, plus the rooftops are kind of an unofficial attraction, whether or not you use them to scale buildings. So people, counter-intuitively, feel more compelled to give a shit.
1
@XxMerc050xX Lol, not that easy. Alcohol is everywhere— you don't drink at an office party, you might not get in good with the boss to get that promotion. Weed is everywhere— it has nothing to do with being weak-minded, you could just try it once without knowing what it does. Same goes for opioids. How many millions of people were just listening to their doctor's instructions for pain treatment only to leave with a physical dependency? Get your conservative mindset out of here, it doesn't work. It failed. For 40 years it failed.
1
Redfestiva bo Lol nice try. The South and its conservative culture are dying. All of the South's economy is concentrated in its cities, and they're becoming more liberal every day. Liberalism = prosperity. Conservatives never stood a chance.
1
They're smart about it, I see. But sometimes even soldiers are human, and want to visit their family in another country. What then? Does Russia pay for the family to come to Russia and visit?
1
You started by saying that falsely thinking you need lots of money to have a nuclear family is the problem, then go on to describe social changes? You need to stay on topic. The system broke down with the Rise of the Rest. Other countries didn't need every little bit of American help in their economies, so jobs that could once support multiple people (manufacturing, freight) no longer could. Wages get cut when you're not the only workforce on Earth.
1
@flame-sky7148 For someone who (I'm assuming) is American, you seem so fond of restricting personal freedom. Marriages aren't worth keeping if they don't work. A loveless marriage is psychologically worse for the child(ren) than having a single parent. I'd rather be poor than have a damaged view of relationships for the next few decades. Even if that weren't the case, it doesn't matter- the argument is that the idea of a nuclear family isn't natural. Extended families- tribes- are what humans evolved to be in. And sex was done by the tribe- all the men had sex with every woman when her time came. Why did it matter who the biological father was? The son would be raised by all the men, so he is the son of the tribe. The idea that one person belongs to another is a new idea, rooted in greed and ownership of property. Among the lower class, marriages were arranged for the betterment of the two families. Men could divorce women, but not the other way around. Women were considered property and men could do as they pleased with them. Among the upper class, marriage was political. Both families pawned off their kin for greater influence. Men who could afford it had mistresses (glorified escorts) which was accepted at the time. It is no longer. Nothing about marriage from the 1950's is normal or historical. Two people fallen in love, a single breadwinner, only 3-4 family members, etc. It's all manufactured by the U.S.. The only similarity I could find was that your ideas about divorce are quite literally medieval.
1
@flame-sky7148 Excuse me for sorting through the enormous amount of bullshit I received. If you don't have the patience to read replies, then don't comment your opinions. This just tells me you're unwilling to have your views challenged. Oh, and from the way you write lol, you're either 30+ or a very weird teenager.
1
@flame-sky7148 I don't agree with it, so I won't. If you can convince me otherwise, I might.
1
@ThisHandleIsNotTaken. It was an extension of the Russian Empire, almost the same territory and policies as before, just with a maniac as the Tsar instead of an idiot. So, no. The last Russian state lasted about 600 years. Russia today still has that mindset, but it's more different to the USSR and Empire, than they were to each other.
1
France also works with your argument- they don't like the American smile either. I think it's just different cultural values from country to country. Fun fact, Russians have started smiling more over the past few years (at least in customer service).
1