• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      123
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Between the two there is a big difference:

      One is a profession that can be a particularly dangerous way of life. Orders from above put you into place far from support, with limited resources, often in contact with hostiles on a daily basis. You’re often left to fend for yourself with only what you have on you against overwhelming odds. Command structures often pit you against your peers in petty internal politics around rank. The pay isn’t great, and those that stick with it for the long haul to make a lifetime of it often leave scared and mentally injured. It can be a thankless job in putting your life and health on the line to achieve the overall goal.

      The other profession usually involves wearing a uniform and enforcing USA’s geopolitical interests in other countries.

      • Custoslibera@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        34
        ·
        1 year ago

        You poor thing, maybe if your teachers were praised more you’d have been taught better and be less confused.

    • sock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      id argue that that’s not true but my roommate and his friend made me watch 30+ minutes of commentated (by my friends) WW2 footage. i had to be like “hey man with all due respect i get the appeal I think but im not really interested in the glorification of something this horrific im sorry.” they were understanding but that level of interest in something so bleek was crazy.

      also they were using WW2 japenese slurs and saying id walk up to that if i were there. and im like NO THE FUCK YOU WOULDNT you wouldnt even make it out of the armored car that took you there bud. people are not as badass as they think they are and soldiers arent badass they just want to see their families again we dont have to cheer them on like the opposing side doesnt also just wanna go home to their families.

      ugh

  • WEAPONX@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    120
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Two party system. They can’t possibly represent everyone’s interests. Feels more like religion to me .

    • XEAL@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Two parties that are, if I’m not mistaken, the Right and the Rightest.

      Didn’t the USA see any leftist ideology as radical?

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Basically because we were early adopters to modern republic systems. We tried something new because parliament was a bit too kingy for our tastes. But due to its simplicity it became really easy for two parties to wipe the floor with everyone else. And basically the only times they’ve changed was at the start and again shortly before our civil war. Neither party has ever had good reason to change the system, which would require massive agreement to change our constitution. So nobody does.

      For example, politically I’m a syndicalist, but the democrats are pro union, pro environment, pro woman, and pro lgbt, all of which with a big asterisk but still I consistently vote for them because the greens didn’t win with Nader so they’re definitely going to lose now. So I dutifully vote Democrat because the only other party that has a chance is the republicans and they hate me and everything I believe in.

      If we could do it again we’d do it better but in our defense we didn’t really have anyone to model off of

    • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s an inevitable conclusion of our winner take all voting system. “The man with the most votes wins.” If 4 candidates run, and they get 22% 22% 16% and 40% of the vote, the man with 40% of the vote wins the race, and 60% of the population didn’t get the candidate they voted for.

      Now imagine you’ve got a red, orange, green and blue party. Orange voters get together and decide "You know, the Red party’s platform is pretty similar to ours, what if we didn’t run a candidate next time and instead encouraged our voters to vote for the Red candidate instead? The blue candidate won with 40% of the vote, but our two parties put together would have 44%.

      In the next election with three candidates, the red candidate wins 44% to 40%, prompting a similar conversation at the Green party headquarters. Soon enough there are two parties.

      We’re one of if not the oldest representative democracy in the world today; our constitution is 250 years old, there’s some old bugs still in the code base.

    • 4am@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      The two party system isn’t really codified in law, it’s just kind of a side-effect of the way we vote and the way government is organized. Due to those two things, it’s hard to change.

      • Shapillon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s like a restaurant with a single dish and you can only chose a side. One’s xenophobia with a sprinkle of batshit crazy, the other’s utter impotence.

  • merridew@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    119
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sticker price isn’t the price you pay at the till. Why? Why do you do that.

    Massive gaps between the walls and doors of public lavatory cubicles. This is not some mystical, advanced technology. Get it together.

    • orphiebaby@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      We do that because our country is founded on the “right” for moneymakers to put as much onto the customer as they can get away with. Hence things like tipping culture.

    • blackbrook@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve seen this conversation many times on Reddit, and from what people say I assume there is a regional thing going on on. I’m from a part of the US where toilet stalls do not have massive gaps. There is a big gap at the bottom but too low for anyone to be seeing under unless they are crawling on the floor. Gaps along the sides are quite narrow. 1 cm at most, and nothing anyone is going to be seeing you through unless they are some kind of freak putting their eye right up to it. These stalls are prefab panels you can easily put into a room. The gaps mean ventilation for the room takes care the stalls too.

      I assume stalls started this way and became normalized, and in some parts of the country they’ve gotten sloppier, and sloppier, and normalized these huge gaps I hear people describe but never see.

      This might be my bias, but I assume these are the places where everything is a suburban stripmall wasteland, where there are no sidewalks, and where it seems to me the whole environment is increasingly dehumanized.

      • merridew@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Thank you for your comment. I can’t speak for the entire world, but in the UK a 1 cm" gap in the door of a public toilet would be massive and unacceptable. It’s not enough that someone can only see into a stall through a gap in the door if they are “right up to it”; they should not be able to see in at all. Public toilets in other countries have doors with gaps you can’t leer through at all.

        Re. the “gaps meaning ventilation”, surely the “big gap at the bottom” and the fact that the whole top is open will be contributing more to ventilation?

        You say you think this might be a regional thing in the US. Okay, could be. I have personally encountered this issue in Washington, California, North Carolina, DC, Massachusetts, Georgia, Texas, Oregon, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Maryland.

        • blackbrook@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I can understand that to someone not used to this, any gap at all might be troubling and one might tend to exaggerate it as “massive”.

          However note that these walls are fairly thick which narrows any visibility angles considerably. So to really see someone through the gap you would have to be at exactly the right angle and looking straight at them. Sitting on the toilet in one of these you can see some really narrow strip of the sinks area which also reflects the areas in which someone would have to be and looking straight at you to see you. People at the sink area have their back to you. People walking past them to another stall, are not looking to the side.

          I’m not trying to convince you that they are ideal, or that your should like them, just that when the gaps are pretty narrow it is not as big a deal as you might think to get used to.

          Again this is assuming these gaps are pretty narrow. I get the impression from what some Americans have said in other discussion that in some places they are quite a bit wider than I am used to, and what I said above may no longer apply.

          • merridew@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Oh, I absolutely believe that people in America can accept it’s “not as big a deal as you might think”.

            This is a thread about things about America that make no sense. So: I don’t understand why America, seemingly uniquely, accepts this as “not a big deal”.

            It’s weird. Land of the free, home of the public toilets strangers can see inside. So odd.

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      The US doesn’t have a VAT, but a sales tax on final sale of a good. Not only that, but states, counties, and cities can issue their own sales tax on sales within their borders. There are also cases where sales tax isn’t charged at the register. In the end, it is easier for companies to just charge the tax at the end, so they do.

      • Schmeckinger@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are these mystical things called computers, that are very good at computing things. So when printing the price you can automatically compute it into the labels.

        • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nowadays, yes. However, that wasn’t always the case. People got used to tax not being included and there has never been a big push to change that.

          • kaktus@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            1 year ago

            So instead of calculating the price once and putting it on the sign, they calculate it every time a customer shows up at the register. Sure sounds way easier.

            • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Or they print out consistent signs across a region, advertise to it, and take care of the sales tax to handle it.

          • yata@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            Again, they calculated the price at the checkout, so they could also have done it for the price tag. It is not a valid excuse in the slightest. Its only purpose is to obfuscate the actual price of an item and confuse the customer about the actual price of an item.

      • yata@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        That is a nonsensical excuse. If they can calculate the price at the checkout then they can calculate it when they are putting up the price tags.

      • MJBrune@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not that it’s easier it’s that it allows the companies to gouge you. If the store said the bottle of coke was 2.15 instead of 1.99 you might realize that it’s not a good price for acidic sugar water and pick something else. Like the free water out of the faucet. This also means public water would be higher quality because people would actually use it and demand cleaner water.

    • YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Keeping your gun accessible when driving your car. Needing or wanting to open carry when you go shopping. Needing to pose with your family all holding powerful guns for a Christmas photo. I don’t get it.

      • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Most of America doesn’t do it, just the people who are afraid of violence - which also happens to the same people who would quickly resort to violence. At this point, seeing a person wearing a gun is the same as seeing warning colors on other species like insects. If you see it, turn and go the other way. There is literally nothing worth the inconvenience of dealing with those people. (And hospitals don’t allow open carry so matters of life and death can be attend to without worry.)

    • Melllvar@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      A modern analog I like is to high grade digital encryption.

      Terrorists and criminals use it, and governments want to ban it. But that doesn’t actually mean it should be banned, or that people who oppose a ban are terrorists or criminals.

      • Draghetta@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Totally, except regulating encryption makes much more sense because of al those encryption-violence deaths that happen daily in the US. All those kids with easy access to encryption going to school and encrypting their classmates, the policemen not intervening because they are afraid to get encrypted by the kids armed with military grade AES-512 routines.

        It is a modern analog, but with its limits - all this stuff doesn’t happen in countries where encryption is much more regulated and you can’t buy encryption routines in malls.

        • Melllvar@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Your comment comes off as shallow and dismissive. I’d be happy to discuss this further, but not under those conditions.

      • XEAL@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, but it’s way harder to kill someone accidentally (or in a fit of rage) with high grade digital encryption than with a firearm.

    • Throwaway@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Guns are the only reliable way to deal with tyrants. And while its not everytime, look at what happens to disarmed populations usually.

      Also gun control started as and still is racist.

      • Draghetta@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        You had a tyrant that tried to overthrow a legitimate election through violence.

        Where were all gun nuts then? Those who weren’t attempting said coup, that is. Doesn’t sound reliable to me.

        As for what happens to disarmed populations, most of Europe has gun control laws that would make any American have a heart attack, and yet here we are, no dictators to be seen up to GMT+3. Do say, what is it that happens to disarmed populations? What is happening to us that I somehow didn’t notice?

        And gun control being racist… I’m sorry, what? This right here, this is the thing I’ll never understand about Americans. Everything is racist. You can’t talk about anything, somebody will play the “racist” card before you can get any deeper than slogans. Absolutely every single thing turns out to be a race issue. Sure, you guys had very big issues with racism until very recently (learning about sundown towns for me was a huge WTF moment) and it’s very hard to deal with a past so ugly - but still, maybe not everything is about race.

        • Throwaway@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          In America, gun control started as a way to disarm black people. Worked out well when the Klan wanted to lynch someone. Thats what was racist about it.

          • Draghetta@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sounds like the usual American retcon… you have a race obsession now so everything all the time was about race. A bit like Marx, who was obsessed with class struggle so literally every single event in history was actually a class struggle.

            Also if you search online you’ll find plenty of articles they say they gun control is perceived as a racial issue, because gun control damages the rights of whites - with similarly flimsy arguments and mental gymnastics.

            It’s almost as if it’s all bullshit.

      • daddyjones@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t know about the racism thing, but I doubt it. As far as the other thing, it doesn’t have to be a choice between no guns or no restrictions. In the UK we have a ban on handguns and some hoops you have to jump through to own a rifle. Nothing too onerous I believe (though I’ve never tried to own a gun.)

        I’m not afraid of our government becoming tyrannical. If it did, though, and guns are really the only reliable way to deal with them (I’m not convinced but anyway) then we still have plenty going around.

    • thenightisdark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      What about it? Going to go bang, explosions are fun. Shooting people bad. What else did you want to know?

      -signed Bleeding heart lefty with a gun

      • SonnyVabitch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        American lefty, which means you’d be at best centre right in any country with a healthcare system.

          • SonnyVabitch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh I didn’t mean you specifically, it’s just a general comment on how policies of the European centre right parties are labelled in the American media. The Overton window is shifted to the left in Europe.

            • thenightisdark@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I was surprised to find out that abortion pre Rove versus Wade decision in the United States abortion was much more accessible than it was in the European Union.

              Generally shifted to the left the overton window but not always.

              For example, abortion.

              • SonnyVabitch@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Fair point.

                I’m not familiar with RvW, but I’d suspect that in Europe it’s largely member state competency, and the more religious societies might have stricter rules. I know Poland is very prohibitive, and so was Ireland until very recently when a highly publicised human tragedy turned people against the rigid rules of the Church.

  • glad_cat@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    83
    ·
    1 year ago

    At-will employment makes no sense to me. You go to work every day knowing you could be fired without any possibility of taking the time to find another job. It would drive me crazy.

    • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      You should not compare that to employment as it is known in other countries.

      Rather compare it to slavery. Doesn’t it look better now? ;-)

      • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, I’ll take the months notice period and knowing I get redundancy if my job goes over being able to quit a bit faster.

        • GregoryTheGreat@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I quit by showing up 3 hours early and sent an eff you I’m out email. Dropped my badge on my desk and walked out without talking to anyone.

        • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          No. You just tell someone above you that you quit, and then leave.

          You could walk out without telling anyone, but that’s rare. Depends on how horrible the job is.

        • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nope. I literally walked into work, dropped off my badge, said I quit and never looked back. HR called and I let it go to voicemail. They wanted to confirm my mailing address. A few weeks later I got my last paycheck. I left that company to change fields and it has never come up as an issue in subsequent roles. Quitting without notice is a fantastic perk that almost no one will be able to use. The key is to burn out early so looking for the next job is just around the corner.

          • Draghetta@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m sorry I don’t get why this is a perk.

            In here we have mandatory notice up to three months depending on tenure. It’s perfectly normal for new employers to have to wait the notice period when hiring a new person. Mind you, that’s 3 more guaranteed pay checks after you quit.

            If you want to leave early you can negotiate a shorter notice, which i personally have never seen refused - normally people don’t want to keep leavers around so they’ll agree to a couple of weeks for handovers and then happily send you away with your (mandatory, tenure based) severance bonus.

            If your old employer is petty and wants to keep you around for the whole notice you can just stop caring and carry on with the bare minimum. What are they going to do, fire you? Unless you’re causing them serious damage in that time they can’t do anything about it. That is also why employers tend to be very happy when you try to negotiate a short notice period.

            I can understand how satisfying it must be to show up, slam your badge on somebody’s desk and say “fuck you I quit” - but other than those two seconds of joy I don’t see any other benefits.

            • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              There’s no negotiating anything with at will employment. You just leave if you want to leave.

              You can negotiate if you want to. Or you can say fuck off and just get another job somewhere else. That’s the freedom of it. You’re not locked into any type of contact.

              • Draghetta@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah but I don’t understand how that’s better. Your employer has to agree to keep you around longer rather than the other way around, feels much worse for financial well-being. But even if it was the same, there’s no way that’s worth having zero notice firing without just cause.

                It feels a bit like cope ngl- like yeah I’m doing chemo I can’t eat anything but flavourless meal replacements but look I’ve never been slimmer! That’s a remarkable perk!

        • JPAKx4@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Depending on your contract, you can absolutely just leave mid shift with no repercussions. Even if you breach your contract, the company will have to pursue legal action to claim any damages, which is costly.

    • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      For the most part, in my experience, don’t be a fuck up and you won’t get fired. Every company I’ve ever worked for has had very strict rules about firing people, It can take months for someone to get fired for anything short of violence, theft, or sexual harassment.

      • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is true. No idea why you’re being downvoted. There are tons of protections in place for workers in at-will states.

            • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, that’s the entire point of “at-will” employment.

              There are protected classes, but “for no reason” is quite legal in most states, which is the terrible reality. US labor laws suck.

              • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                That depends on where you’re working. If you’re working for a company in an industry that tends to lay people off at certain times, then yeah you’re probably to be laid off in the future. Most companies aren’t like that though.

    • Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I guess that also makes it somewhat easier to get hired though? You can give your employees a chance without thinking too much about it, and if they suck just fire them.

      • Turun@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        We have this in Germany - for the first six months of employment. Ok, it’s still two weeks notice because that’s the right thing to do, but still, it’s less than the 1/2/3/4/5/6/7 months of notice required after working at a place for 0.5/5/8/10/12/15/20 years. (BGB §622 for the curious)

        There is no reason to keep the possibility for such a short notice indefinitely.

  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They will say of themselves as being Irish/Italian/other-european-nationality because their great-grandfather or great-grandmother came from there.

  • NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    A “politics” channel on a site called Lemmy.World that is specifically only for US politics, because America is the world.

  • Knusper@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    1 year ago

    Voting registration. I get a letter that I can vote and what the options are. Then on voting day, which is on a Sunday, because why would it be on any other day, I just walk into my town hall with that letter and my ID card, put down my crosses and leave. It’s like a walk in the park, often quite literally.

  • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    City design and suburbs. Like if I had to drive 40 minutes to get groceries I would prefer to starve and those suburbs look like death would be the better alternative. Also driving to go for a walk, wtf?

  • Michal@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    City zoning.

    Oh, i have to drive from single family zone to commercial district to pick up a loaf of bread. Then drive to education district to drop kids at kindergarten, and finally to business district to work. At the end of the day i hang out at bar/entertainment district with the guys from work to have a beer, but there’s no public transport so I have to drink alcohol free so I can drive back home. That’s only 120 miles in a day!

  • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    1 year ago

    Vote for people who actively oppose universal healthcare, mandatory PTO policies, universal family leave policies, universal college-level education, etc.

  • Powerpoint@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Canadian here but still, shoes in house? Gross. Obsession with gun culture? Also gross.

    • JPAKx4@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      I remember hearing that Europe doesn’t use drywall nearly as much. A benefit of drywall is cost and repairability, but is basically glorified paper, yes.

      • XEAL@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You don’t have to repair it if you can’t break it.

        Try breaking a brick wall with your head or fists, lol.

        • protist@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Try rebuilding a brick wall after a tornado, you’re going to spend so much more money and you won’t have a house for a lot longer

          • Tippon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s the other side of the confusion. You build houses out of sticks and paper, and live in somewhere called Tornado Alley…

              • Obi@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think that was an empirical “you”, not you specifically…

            • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, I live in an area prone to tornadoes. Not as tornado prone as the midwest, but we’ve seen tornadoes in this area.

              A particularly notable one touched down in a town not far from here, in the business district. It tore down multiple steel framed cinder block buildings including a Lowe’s Home Improvement Center and a Tractor Supply Company.

              A big bad wolf might not be able to blow a brick house down, but an EF3 tornado certainly can.

          • XEAL@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’d like to see a tornado tearing up a brick house as easily as a wood and drywall house.

      • idunnololz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It also hurts way less if you accidentally hit it as an side benefit. I’m Canadian and we also use drywall for everything.

    • NotANaziIWasJustBornIn1988@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The benefit of stick frame houses is that they can be built quickly, comparatively cheaply, and actually perform much better than other types in hurricane and tornados. The US also has plenty of domestic wood production, so it’s the cheapest material to build with. During the housing boom and suburban sprawl of the 50s (where modern American culture started), where everyone wanted their own house and plot of land in rhe “safe suburbs,” these were all desirable.

      As for the “why don’t you build out of brick and stone,” it’s not like someone would be better off with a stone house in the event of a natural disaster or fire. Even if the structure was still standing, the damage to the foundation would condemn the house under US building code. And now not only does your insurance have to pay to build a new house, it has to pay to have the old one tore down.