Is this troper the only one who winces when people use the term "gay" as meaning anything bad or stupid. she hates this so much that for a day she put a 10p fine on her friends every time they used it that day. Earned over £4 before they told me to quit it. As Simon Amstell put it "It sounds homophobic but of course she's using the other, fashionable term of the word meaning anything generally bad". Personally I find it incredibly offensive but no one seems to realize just how bad it is in the same way racism was considered perfectly normal and acceptable not that long ago.

Don't be pissed off at language shift. "Gay" meant "happy", then it became slang for a prostitute. Later, it came to mean "homosexual", and now it can mean "stupid" as well. Similarly, "making love" originally meant just having a heartfelt conversation with friends or family--no romantics involved. Only in the latter half of the 20th century did it get its current meaning. HaveAGayOldTime, indeed.

This troper's new mother friend (born in Colorado, now lives in Massachusetts) goes nuts when she must breast feed in public, she won't even do it on her balcony or near any windows in her apartment. She worries about offending people with nudity no matter how many times I tell her it's fine and no one is going to care. She currently has a large cape she wears when she must feed the baby in public.

This troper is in kind of a weird position. I don't understand people's obsession with themselves. I've always been taught to always... always think of other people before myself. And would gladly risk my life to save a stranger's.

I was taught the same... and would kill a city planet to save myself. Yeah, trying to give me morals doesn't work.

Well, egoism is kinda logical: You're you, you're not other people. ''Your'' happiness and misfortune is the only that you will ever experience, no one else's. You may emphasize with others, but again, that's ''your'' empathy. And of course it will be ''your'' guilt and bad conscience if you act selfishly after having been taught your whole life to think of others first. So in the end, it's your own gratification you seek by being selfless. Still, the rest of us wouldn't have it any other way :- )

I think you just disproved that good exists, since it's just based on selfish empathy. By the same logic, evil is bullshit too since psychopaths and hypothetical 'Evil' monsters are just doing whats 'Good' for them and atrocious to others. I think this makes half of every Aesop ever conceived to be wrong. I don't know whether to feel sad that morals are worth nothing or happy that I'm free from all the utter crap every hypocritical thing people have said to me. Interesting over all.

Is it possible that it has something to do with not fearing death? I mean, I'm really not scared of dying, so I wouldn't have a problem with risking my life to save someone else's.

That makes more sense.

Also, you really don't know how you'll act in an extreme situation until you're in one. I'm sure you'd like to believe that you would gladly risk your life to save your neighbor, but when the occasion arises, would you really do it?

That would really have to depend on who I'm supposed to be saving here.

This troper remembers attending Latin class, using a faux-Roman textbook -- including the tacit and deliberate assumption that owning slaves and treating women as inferior is only natural. Not to mention how the expansion of the Empire could only be a good thing...

You talking "Ecce Romani" or was this a different one?

Also the liberal beating of schoolchildren and of slaves and commoners that get too close to an important senator.

That's the coolest textbook ever.

Also, there's an immense amount of values dissonance in this troper's past Latin curriculum (after taking those very same textbooks, I suspect) because we're translating the ''Aeneid''. The teacher has become so frustrated in attempts to address this, as well as general mythological dissonance ("Why doesn't Juno just kill Ganymede if he annoys her so much instead of taking it out on his country?" "If that woman turned into a fly, why didn't Jupiter [[WhyDontYouJustShootHim just kill it?") that he has declared a ban on discussing it. That does still not account for how we have to talk around Ganymede. (Thankfully, this troper's now-current Humane class is reading the Iliad, and has done a fairly good job handing the values dissonance around women-as-"prize", as well as the role of the gods and the whole Patroclus deal.)

This troper is an Australian teaching English in Japan, and has bumped up against a few cases of Values Dissonance at his schools, particularly in the (somewhat patriotic) school culture festivals. Best example that pops into mind; a play about a group of modern teenagers who time-hop accidentally to the very end of WWII, meet a young pilot and his family, and discover he is due to fly a kamikaze mission the next day. They manage to prove to him that the war will be over tomorrow and his death will change nothing, but he chooses to fly the mission anyway rather than live to look after his wife and children. Aesop to Japanese students = noble act of sacrifice and loyalty, Aesop to Western observer = futile, tragic waste of a life.

In general, Japanese classical literature and their culture in general highly romanticizes suicidal acts as noble sacrifices to ideals, loved ones, etc. It's probably the primary reason why Japan has one of the highest numbers of suicides per year of almost any developed nation.

This is lampshaded during an exchange in the play ''M. Butterfly'', a TakeThat to the opera ''Madama Butterfly'' (whose ending has titular character, a geisha, kill herself): #QUOTE# '''Song:''' "Consider it this way: what would you say if a blonde homecoming queen fell in love with a short Japanese businessman? He treats her cruelly, then goes home for three years, during which time she prays to his picture and turns down marriage from a young Kennedy. Then, when she learns he has remarried, she kills herself. Now, I believe you would consider this girl to be a deranged idiot, correct? But because it's an Oriental who kills herself for a Westerner -- ah! -- you find it beautiful."

Dude, that's like, the plot of that movie, without messier results.

This mindset may finally be slowly changing. A {{Toku}} show entitled ''{{K-tai Investigator 7}}'', which involves secret agents fighting cyberterrorism with AI-equipped cyborg cellphones, had one episode with a plot almost exactly like that WWII story, except it's caused by a cell phone signal blockage test that somehow causes the main character's phone to be able to talk back through time to a WWII pilot (the husband of the old lady who he's staying with for the episode) who is minutes away from divebombing into an American battleship. The final conversation before the blockage ends doesn't show the pilot's choice, but the next morning, the main character wakes up to a changed timeline, where the pilot is alive, and he and his wife suddenly have a parade of grandchildren helping take care of their farm, which the widow previously lived at all by herself. The pilot seems to show no remorse for choosing to stay alive, and in fact personally thanks the main character once he connects the dots upon hearing his name.

This American troper finds that Socialism (or even being a bit collectivist) in the United States is enough to cause most people to flip out. Supporting SPUSA got me a warning from my parents that it could very well cost me a job. However, when I was in Europe, there were public banners and demonstrations for Socialist organizations. Why so individualist?

This troper knows a man who organized a multi-day dogsled trip in the Canadian Arctic for American tourists who wanted to experience "genuine" Inuit culture. In the middle of the trip they ran across a small group of caribou and the Inuit guides promptly demonstrated, to some of said tourists' shock, that part of genuine Inuit culture consisted of turning Rudolph the Reindeer (not to mention Dancer, Prancer, Vixen and the rest) into a bloody smear on the tundra for lunch.

In this case, the dissonance obviously comes from the fact that said tourists know only the cute reindeers from cartoons and don't have to hunt them to get something to eat.

This troper was puzzled to see Americans shocked beyond reason at the thought of eating horse meat, going so far as to make it a plot in point in a ''{{Bones}}'' episode. In most of Western Europe, a horse sandwich is a perfectly normal lunch; anglophone countries treat it like a step below cannibalism.

This American Troper would love to try a horsesteak (partly because its mentioned so much in {{A Song Of Ice And Fire}}) but he knows of no one else.

This Canadian Troper has eaten a horse sandwich, and found the meat to taste good, but it was tough. He wonders if a pony would be more tender.

This American Troper had basashi (horsemeat sashimi) before he knew what it was. The school tried to pull the same thing on him with whale meat one day at lunch, but he refused it once he realized where it came from.

This American troper ate horse once and never will again. No seriously, it's tough and gamey. Get a real meat.

Where did you get it? This troper once heard at an anime convention panel on Japanese cooking that most countries that eat horse on a regular basis do a similar thing with cows and specifically breed certain animals to taste better, while most of the horseflesh sold in America comes from unsold stock at farm auctions (usually old or sick animals). I'm not sure how credible that information is though.

This Troper can shed some light on the reluctance in Anglophone countries to eat horse. In ancient times horses were eaten in Britain, however the practice had links to the pagan beliefs of the time so when Christianity arrived in England during the Anglo-Saxon era it was cracked down on for being pagan and therefore 'wrong'. After a few centuries the whole thing was ingrained to the point where being disgusted at the idea is pretty much automatic.

This troper doesn't know the episode (was it the Horse Play episode? In any case, horsemeat is generally considered dog food over here, so perhaps it wasn't moral outrage, just outrage at being given/taking low quality food.

It also has to do with the fact that the horses were often treated cruelly when they were used for dog food over here, and often being abused before they are even sold to the people who slaughter them. It's more that the market is more notorious for being cruel than other animals used for meat. That's the way it was in the US before the policy for rounding up mustangs was reformed anyways. There were even stories of very expensive privatively owned horses being accidentally rounded up with the mustangs and slaughtered because no one bothered to check.

Also, most horses over here are either pets or working animals or both. We have the same aversion to eating dogs or cats, despite them being not uncommon in some Asian cuisines.

This troper was absolutely fascinated to discover cigarette dispensers populating various locations in her new town, including bowling alleys and restaurants. They were complete with stickers declaring that the sale of tobacco to minors was illegal, but they were in no way regulated. Said troper proceeded to buy a pack of cowboy killers with QUARTERS!

This troper once read a passage by a slave trader where he describes loading slaves onto his ship... and then segues into a monologue about how black people aren't any worse then white people. The effect was absolutely bizarre.

It's only in recent centuries that black people were slaves and white people were slaveowners and never the twain would meet. For most of human history, people owned other people without concern for what they looked like.

Indeed, enormous numbers of European migrants (men, women and children) in the colonial age (including most Britons in early America) bought sea passage by 'voluntarily' selling themselves into indentured servitude. This consisted of a 3-7 year stint as a slave sold by the captain of the ship upon landing (often breaking up families,) with your owner legally able to say where you can go, sell you to someone else, beat you, veto marriages, and have runaways executed. English peasantdom had only died out a century before America was colonized.

During one of New Orleans' earlier Renaissance periods there was such a rapid social mobility that buying and selling your own slavery was pretty commonplace. And people treated their slaves well because the rapid social mobility worked both ways, and anyone could become a slave on a later day.

ThisTroper used to work for a rather large Korean company's US plant. The scarcity of high ranking female employees combined with this troper working with several Koreans whose wives used to work for the company... until they married an engineer and quit to raise children.

This Caucasian troper finds amusement in seeing black kids his age addressing one another as "nigga". For kicks, he now refers to his white friends as "crackers" and "honkies".

Oooh. This Caucasian troper, who has never received discrimination for her race, hates it when white people, like RushLimbaugh and that chick from ''Good Day LA'', refer to themselves as "crackers" and "honkies" in the most cynical way. It's mind-boggling, really, and full of UnfortunateImplications about being jealous of receiving... the same kind of benefits that other races receive through Affirmative Action, for example. Perhaps it's just my DoubleStandard, but... I don't know. It just proves a part of the HumansAreBastards theory where the subject's problems are always perceived as worse than anyone else's.

This troper used to work in a coffee shop in a tourist area and was puzzled by Americans who talked on their cell phones, complained about the exchange rate, and still tipped better than even her favourite super-nice local customers. (Most Americans were also lovely customers, she hastens to add; it was that the ones who ''were'' rude but still tipped generously that confused her.) It was only when she travelled to the US herself that she learned how ingrained the tip jar is there.

It's not just the tip jar. Tipping is rich source of Values Dissonance between countries. In a lot of places overseas service charges are included in the bill and tipping is just that: a gratuity for exceptional service. In America, however, many places are allowed to pay waitstaff less than minimum wage because twenty to thirty percent of their income is expected to be earned with tips. Hence why tipping less than fifteenth percent of the bill in America makes you a cheap bastard and why foreign tourists get a reputation for being lousy tippers.

This troper was dumb enough to tell her mother 'whatever' one day when she got annoyed by her mother's nagging and got yelled at. Apparently in Africa (this troper is African American), you get your ass kicked for saying things like 'whatever'; In America (or at least where this troper lives) kids say much ''worse'' things to their parents and they do absolutely nothing.

This troper oftentimes dreams of a world where swearing, drinking, smoking, and the like are acceptable to put in children's cartoons! Oftentimes, the supposedly offensive material is integral to the plot, such as an teens ''drinking alcohol'' to become '''a team of superheroes'''!

This Troper was very surprised to learn that there were actually people who wouldn't eat human corpses to save their lives and wouldn't kill one person to save more than one (assuming you did not know any of the people in question).

A case of competing philosophies within a single time and place, I suppose - utilitarian vs deontological ethics, possibly.

It's one thing to let people die. To actually kill somebody is something quite different. If you're willing to kill one person to save others as an answer to an ethical exercise, how far are you willing to take that principle in real life? If you could kill every Jew, Christian, and Muslim on earth in order to create a technological utopia where everybody else is free, prosperous and happy -- would you do it? This troper wouldn't, even though he despises monotheism, because he thinks that if you willingly violate even a single person's rights in the name of your cause, you have irredeemably blackened your cause. The end does not justify the means. Instead, it is the means that justify your end.

By that logic, every single cause in the history of the world has been "irredeemably blackened." Unless you can come up with some movement that hasn't had so much as a single member do something underhanded. Besides which, you seem to be assuming that killing every monotheist in the world would instantly create a global utopia, which is, frankly, disgusting.

The fact that you're implying killing off religious people will solve ''anything'', never mind create a technological utopia, is some serious values dissonance.

And apparently non-monotheistic religions are awesome and progressive...

In any case there are some minor difficulties with all that. People have had an ''awful'' time trying to exterminate just one Monotheist religion. All three at once may be somewhat difficult.

Um... Wow, would you "people" mind telling me the [[strike:subhuman species very lazy troll]] nation and culture where cannibalism is presently neither stigmatized as the most depraved transgression of the MoralEventHorizon conceivable nor banned under pain of the direst punishment possible?

I'm not sure that's what the original troper is talking about so much as the fact that given no other option some people would rather starve to death than eat human meat.

Harsh words there. I would hope to be right in naming most all cultures and nations, lest it is believed in some of them out there that the conduct with dead flesh is somehow more important than that with living flesh.

Well, if you mean cannibalism in the sense of "hunting people for food", no culture today does that or likely ever did. I know that Maori would eat heir loved ones remains. Of course the Aztecs would eat parts of their sacrifices, but they were pretty close to being a real life ReligionOfEvil.

There are actually some places where ritualistic cannibalization is still practiced. ThisTroper only knows because that's how some native groups (she's pretty sure they're not the Maori) got this weird disease because of a ceremony involving eating certain parts of their dead. And if the dead are infected with a delayed-reaction disease...

That case actually took Western pathologists a while to trace because they weren't aware of the custom and the disease didn't appear until a few years after the eating. Getting the natives to stop their sacred traditional practice was another battle...

If you're talking about the case I think you are, that disease was actually something similar to Mad Cow.

It's called Kuru.

The Kulina tribe of Brazil are similar.

Some serial killers are just ''really''... different.

This troper, having lived her entire life in a casino town, is often confused at some of her friends online reactions when she mentions going to casino restaurant. (Which ranges from neutral confusion to negative WTFing before clarifying that she lives in Nevada.) She's also boggled at people gawking at the bright lights and general... casino-ness of her home town. Then again, the thought of a town that basically turns off at five or six pm is equally boggling for me.

When this troper went to the Philippines about 15 years ago, he was shocked to discover that none of his relatives, or pretty much anyone else there for that matter, used seatbelts, even in the front seats. This still shocks him to this day, especially since Filipino streets are much, much worse than American streets. Ironically, Filipino drinking laws are more lax (the age to drink is only 18), and you don't hear much about drunk driving shenanigans over there.

Tonga is the same (in both senses) and it is actually considered insulting to the driver to put on your seatbelt (since you obviously don't trust their driving).

In American arcades, when you're waiting your turn on an arcade game, you usually put your coin, card, or other such placeholder on the machine to indicate that your turn is next. This troper went to a Filipino arcade two years ago, put a card on a ''Wangan Midnight Maximum Tune 2'' machine, and the person playing ''continued anyway'', not even bothering to notice his card. The same held true at other arcades, where the "card line" is also not recognized--he found it awkward to have to ask to use the machine, which he needed to do if he wanted to play or else the person on the machine could keep playing until his or her credits ran out.

This troper never saw anything like that at his American arcade (although it could be because it was less crowded); most people looking to play waited around until the person got done without doing anything to secure their place in line.

This Texan Troper has heard some rather interesting remarks about the recent decline in number of European nations that have the death penalty. One of the more amusing bits of gallows humor was from a University friend who went to Germany during the summer one year. Everytime he was asked why American's keep the death penalty his response would be some variation of "y'all thought you needed to get rid of it, we just put in an express lane". He took pictures on his cellular phone of some of the reactions, most are rather... amusing.

The core of that is probably that in the USA, jails are usually seen as a way to dish out revenge on criminals while in Europe, they're more often seen as a literal correction facility.

Chad-Stieger here: Before I clarified some details reguarding the tv show "Smallville" (which is a modern day story of Superman), my Japanese buddy thought said show was a harsh American deconstruction of the Super Sentai genre directed for teenage super sentai fans. With Clark Kent as the lone red ranger to defend earth from the monster of the week. With his parents transitoning from parental guardians to mentors instead of the traditonal mentors of super sentai. Instead of morphing into a sentai and fighting monsters with BFS's Clark must fight with his hands and feet in street clothes without fancy fighting moves, or a vehicle and Clark Kent has to fight in secret and in night time in order to protect his family from the negative consequences of the super sentai lifestyle. This troper's Japanese buddy finds the human monsters such as the Kryptonite freaks and the phantom zoners scarier in that they're humans who act like monsters instead of the horror monsters that populate Super Sentai shows. Acording to this troper's Japanese buddy "Smallville" is unique for an alien who defends his earthly home where as in Super Sentai shows it's the aliens who attack. The Japenese buddy is dismayed when Clark shows unprofessional behavior by sneaking girlfriends in the house for sex and also goes into fits of rage at the female fanservice when Clarks clothes are damaged or when his new friend Lois Lane sees him naked for the first time.

That is the single greatest AlternativeInterpetation of 'Smallville' that this troper has ever heard.

Seconded. Shame it's not actually the case, it'd probably improve the show if it was.

One of this troper's friends was hosting a Japanese exchange student. The two shared the experience of reading ''Literature/{{Twilight}}'', and seemed to have very... different experiences of it. (Also, while this might just be a personal preference on the exchange student's part, she doesn't seem to trust teenage boys with flippy hair, whereas her host girl finds them gorgeous.)

This troper is studying computer science in San Jose, California (in other words, the Silicon Valley region), and many of the classes at the college he attends, including the introductory courses, involve programming in Java. His friend from Seattle thinks it's [[strike:weird outright stupid that said college would teach Java instead of C++ .

This troper, who also was a CS major and attended college in Silicon Valley agrees. As do all his TAs from the terrible introductory Java courses, and every teacher under 40. Guess which teachers taught Java and are the heads of the program? That's right. The ones who are all over sixty and can't actually program in C.

Let's just say that the college I go to, San Jose State, is a disgrace to CS for teaching in Java, the worst programming language ever conceived (besides whatever excretement Microsoft shits out) and does not deserve its reputation as a top-tier CS college.

What insane CS department teaches C at an introductory level? I taught myself C, and even being a tech guy it was a pain. When I got to college and learned simpler languages like Java and Python it was a blessing. And honestly, most people who end up in intro CS at non engineering colleges are going to end up in application or web programming, where C is useless and knowing Java is practically a requirement for getting a job. Those who oppose teaching Java in introductory courses generally fall into 3 camps: 1. those who think even Java is too hard and want to teach Python 2. Elite colleges that teach functional languages and 3. Overly competitive tech guys who feel superior having learned in C.

Speaking as an alum of SJSU's CS department, I can tell you the reason for that is because Sun Microsystems is a HUGE sponsor of the department. The machines used for Unix lessons are all running Sun's Solaris OS and yes, Sun's own Java language is also the preferred language of the department at the company's urging.

This troper is a CS major at the University of Washington (in Seattle) and the introductory CS courses here are also taught in Java...

There was a very smart Mexican girl at this troper's high school (good enough to rank in the top 1% and have a promising career ahead of her). Her parents pulled her out of school so she could find a husband (believing that her schooling was getting in the way), get married, settle down, and lead a happy domestic life. Her teachers were flabbergasted and still tell her story, especially during certain parts of Psychology class.

They also dragged her away from AP Testing and finals to visit family in Mexico for two months, all without her previous knowledge. This one is mentioned by troper's Comparative Government classes to teach people the value of globalization and ValuesDissonance.

Values Dissonance my ass, I'm Mexican and I think (Just like most of my family) that was awful.

Agreed by this Mexican-American troper, but who once shared a class with fellow Mexican girls, one of who, at the age of fifteen, was already engaged to a boy in Mexico, chosen by her parents, and her friends treating this as perfectly normal. I think this may have been a case (as possibly in the above example) of modern vs 'traditional' values, that a girl should marry and start a family early, and obey her family unquestionably (a notion that has been shared by many cultures). Even knowing this, it still makes this troper shudder at the idea of sharing such a fate.

I'm Mexican, and I think I can explain it: I'm from Monterrey, usually called the "most Mexicanized USA city" as a way to insult or just to make fun of us, but that pretty much explains it all: We have a big (and growing) population of immigrants from more "traditionalist" states, and there are strong cultural differences between the "old-native" population (those with at least two or three generation of history in our state, tending to be more "westernized" and "progressist") and the immigrant population (newcomers and their children, usually with more traditional and "nationalistic" values); There is no big problem and nothing really serious to create conflict, but some attitudes from one side tend to shock the other from time to time; I can't talk for other urbanized Mexican zones, but I'm pretty sure their situations may be similar.

This troper is an American citizen living in Mexico. I'm a 25 year old female who is unmarried without kids, and frequently get anywhere from "Old Maid" to less-than-fully-human treatment whenever people here discover my marital status. The best part is that I have to be careful about how I even talk to guys here, as my "flirting" could have dire consequences for me and my job here.

This (Scottish) troper has once or twice seen the term {{Lolicon}} applied to relationships/fanservice involving 16 and 17 year old girls, and been very surprised--the age of consent in the UK is 16.

Yeah, we Americans are apparently staunch believers that the "children" in "Our children are being corrupted!" applies to everyone still being formally educated.

What makes it even more ridiculous is that the age of consent in most states is around 16-17.

When this Asian troper (born and raised in the US) and her mother (born and raised in Asia, immigrated to the US late in her life) get into an argument, her mother will often comment on how children in traditional Asian families would unquestionably respect and obey their elders, in contrast with American families where children smartmouthing their parents is a common and expected occurrence. The same troper has also been thrown off-guard by certain Asian customs she never heard about before, such as it being extremely impolite to step over the sleeping head of someone older than her. (Even when said older person is her cousin in a sleeping bag on the floor of her US home where there isn't much room to maneuver.)

This seems to be universal among Asian-Americans. This Indian-American troper has been scolded quite a bit for the same things. It seems that in addition to the hatred of smart-mouthing, its impossible to contradict your elders on any subject while in public. Also, I learned that kicking someone is considered the ultimate insult, or putting your feet on anybody in general.

It can be partially explained by language differences. Most Asian languages have a delineated colloquial form (for friends) and a polite form (for elders and authority). Modern American English, on the other hand, is not so precise (though it does exist). Speech patterns between children and parents in Western vs. Eastern cultures are thus ''very'' different, and misunderstandings are greatly exacerbated by perceived "insubordination" on the child's part (especially when the children and parents code-switch in the home). In short, when you say "What?" in response to a question when your parents are expecting "Excuse me?"...

This troper has had a great number of arguments with his younger sisters. The smartmouthing, indifference, and general lack of respect drive this troper up the wall; his mother's slaps when his sisters push their discourtesy that little bit too far are events to be put on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

This troper is neither ashamed nor sorry to admit that she finds the idea of casual sex absolutely repugnant. Just... no.

Seconding. It doesn't help that most of the girls at her school have exactly the opposite view, despite five of them having STD scares and another girl who had two pregnancy scares within a month. This lurker is still often expected to justify her asexuality because 'to not be interested in trying sex is unnatural at our age'. This lurker is the oldest in her year group at 16.

Thirded by moi.

Fourthded by yo.

While this troper is just grossed out by the thought of having to have sex. Casually or no. Other people can have it (within reason, preferably not where I have to watch) and I won't blame them, but there's a huge disconnect between "having sex" and "fun".

Fifthded by this gal right hea.

This one would like to know what you mean by casual sex. Because when I hear "casual sex" I think "consensual sex with one's partner", which I'm pretty certain constitutes most of the sex most people have. Is what we're talking about here instead "sex with complete strangers, often and unprotected"? Also, and I'm not trying to get psychoanalyst on anyone here, but I'm seriously curious about why someone would find sex repulsive. To me it's just a thing, and it makes as much sense to me to find... sporks repulsive (sporks too can hurt you terribly if used wrong, and if not cleaned regularly after use, they too can become quite unsanitary). Enlighten me, please.

Casual sex: sex with someone who you are not dating (or greater) and do not have any intention to date.

This troper is neither ashamed nor sorry to admit that she enjoys casual sex. You know what, I think sex is awesome, and I see nothing wrong with screwing someone you don't intend on dating as long as you be safe and have fun and no one gets hurt. It's fine if it's not really your cup of tea, but kindly keep your morality out of my vagina, kthx.

Seconded by me. I would've put "morality" in quotes since there's nothing wrong with consensual sex. It's fine if you personally don't like it and don't want to do it, but don't try to pressure others into thinking the same way or shame them.

Thirded by me! This troper detests the far-reaching pressures and stigmas that society feels the need to shove in her face. What we do consensually is none of your fucking business, and Moral Guardians need to stop trying to make people ASHAMED of their sexuality under the guise of "self-respect".

Fourthed by this male troper. Seriously, I am tired of everyone being so anti-sex and porn. When you think about it, it's actually unnatural and actually perhaps a genetic flaw to be anti-sex, as humans evolved to have sex. We evolved upright walking to gather more food as a sort of bribe to get the women to have sex. We evolved our intelligence due to the upright walking. That's right, the only reason we're the smartest creature on this planet is because we wanted sex. HOMO SAPIENS EXIST BECAUSE WE WANTED TO FUCK. The ones that didn't evolve to walk upright slowly evolved into our closest relative, the chimpanzee. We aren't chimps because we were horny.

See now, that, right there, no, that doesn't make sense. There are diverse, various, and sundry theories on the origins of bipedalism, and that one sounds patently false, due to the obvious fact that both the ancestors of chimpanzees and the ancestors of humanity clearly engaged in reproduction. Please don't use nonsense pseudo-science explanations to justify your arguments about morals.

Wrong. First off, they are, far enough back, the same ancestors. Second, it was something on a National Geographic documentary. Third, it was to give more food and therefor get more sex. The others still reproduced, they just slowly split.

Fifthed by This Troper, who harbors a sincere dislike for the eternal human tendency to assume that not having fun is, somehow, a good thing in itself.

Excuse me, but people who don't find sex fun are no more wrong or unnatural than people who don't find video games fun. That's why this discussion is being listed under Values Dissonance, isn't it? Also, we're no longer monkeys. As the most intelligent creatures on the planet, as you say, every member of Homo sapiens has the intelligence and the right to individually make these decisions.

Okay by me, if you in turn respect our ethical decisions.

So it's casual sex for some, a miniature country flag of your choice for others!!

When this troper was a student teacher, she found herself engaged in a conversation with a student in her college prep class, who marvelled that in Canada, women can marry men who make less money than they do, and if anyone comments on it are free to say "butt out". Similarly to the fact that unmarried men and women frequently live together - usually without any intention of marrying later. The conversation never got around to same-sex marriage - the troper decided it wasn't the right time to bring it up, but it likely would have resulted in even more astonished, even shocked, gasps.

This troper, a Canadian, found herself explaining to classful of flabberghasted French high school students that in her province, you must be nineteen to buy alcohol or go into a bar. Yes, just to go ''into'' the bar, even if you don't plan to drink there. Oh, and you can't smoke in any indoor place accessible to the public - not coffee shops, not restaurants, not pubs. Period. Jaws were scraping the floor.

This troper, born and raised in Texas, often finds herself at odds with the more conservative residents of said state when it comes to abstinence-only education. Mainly because she knows many people who, despite their children supposedly being born a month or two premature (almost always, it's the wedding that was late), still insist that giving kids access to contraceptives and condoms will make them have sex. Right. You'd think that they'd realize, what with their premature babies, that it doesn't matter if you talk to kids about sex or give them access to contraceptives and condoms; if they want to have sex, they most likely will. However, making access more available will hopefully cut down on teen pregnancy and reduce [=STDs=].

In the Netherlands, schools can be fined for abstinence-only sex education. Personally, I always found the American way of promoting abstinence was somewhat odd. After all, in sex education, teaching children how '''not''' to have sex seems a lot like missing the point of the course.

I would like to point out that you're wrong to assume everywhere in the US puts emphasis on abstinence. This Troper (from the metro Detroit area) only remembers abstinence being mentioned as either an afterthought or as a fail-safe way to avoid [=STDs=] and pregnancy. It really depends on how conservative the area is.

Americans, feel free to box her ears and correct her if she has got the wrong end of the stick, but this British troper is puzzled by the American habit of using 'white' as an insult, and finds it quite offensive. Every now and then, she'll see a comment like "Those people are the whitest I've ever met" where 'white' is meant to be derogatory, or someone will leave a comment about people being 'too white' or 'laughably white'. This seems to be an acceptable insult in the US, but it doesn't really exist in the UK, and when this troper hears it she thinks it sounds racist- especially because she could imagine the ugly reactions if someone accused someone else of being 'too black'.

When people use "white" as an insult, they're invoking WhiteDudeBlackDude. It's usually done playfully.

No, you're pretty much spot-on. It's almost always said jokingly, used to refer to several supposed bad characteristics in white people (uncoolness, lack of street smarts, inability to dance, etc.) - but even jokingly, you couldn't get away with using "black" as an insult. It's a double-standard where blacks cannot be insulted for being black, but whites can be insulted for being white - consider it a backlash left over from shameful times.

This troper's Polish-American grandfather was nicknamed "The Jap" by his friends due to his narrow eyes and black hair.

This troper is a first generation immigrant whose family is from Mexico. Once I got into politics I was amazed at how several people were shocked at the mere though of spanking a kid bare-handed when this troper received a leather belt after a shower for showing disrespect to his mother. Heck, few people at my university believe I've been working construction since age twelve seeing as many of their first jobs were fast food joints at age 16/17. What's normal in one culture is seen as parental negligence here.

This Australian lurker has to constantly remind himself that in America 21 is such big deal as it allows you to 'go to a bar and drink to the fact that you've been able to drive and die in a war for the past 3 years'. In Australia you use your newly acquired drivers' license (at 18) to show you are now old enough to buy alcohol. Leads to such jokes as 'license to get pissed and wrap my parents car around a tree'.

This Canadian troper was surprised and annoyed, after going to a casino for his 18th birthday, that you have to be 21 to go gambling in America.

Another Australian Troper here. Just to reinforce the point, when I watched The Social Network the other week I was mightily confused by the fact that there was a problem with people in their late teens drinking. It wasn't until a few hours after the movie I remembered that 21 was the legal drinking age.

Only if they are serving alcohol in the casino.

My mother tells a story of when she was in school in the southern USA, nearly 50 years ago. She was drawing a person and happened to color him in with a pitch-black crayon. The universal response: "Haha, (Mom's name) drew a n* gger!" (Most of these kids had never even ''seen'' a black person - the whole concept of other races was funny and alien. So I'm guessing it was more an ignorant reaction to novelty than real racist intent. But ''still''...)

How the heck could kids living in the southern US fifty years ago ''not'' have seen black people? They made up half the population in the South then!

The "not having seen a black person" thing reminds me of my neighbor. He's very friendly and not at ''all'' racist (most of his employees are from Jamaica) but he claims that until he left home to go to college he didn't know that things like "black people" or "divorce" even ''existed''. I know that we live in a very white state and that back when he was growing up there probably weren't any black people on TV, but how the hell did his high school history class teach about slavery or the Civil War without mentioning blacks?!

This troper once related to his Canadian classmates about the life of a Chinese high school student near graduation. His classmates actually asked him if the schools were run by terrorists.

This troper heard his Spanish professor use a variant of the "eenie meenie miney moe" rhyme substituting "Russian" for "tiger." He admitted he was a product of his time.

The original had a different word, a certain racial epithet describing black people.

The Californian Proposition 8 ads. To this Dutch troper, a rich source of {{Narm}}. However, I did find myself wondering why parents should have the right to object against gay marriage being taught in public schools (and it will be taught). Or, for that matter, why children learning about gay marriage would be a bad thing.

Why shouldn't parents have the right to object to something? It's their kids and their taxes paying for the school. You may not ''agree'' with them, but they ''do'' have the right to object.

No, they really don't. It's a school. You may disagree with what they teach, but you don't directly object to it. If what they teach is inappropiate, you can file a complaint with the proper authorities, but teaching children about marriage (including same-sex marriage) simply isn't inappropiate. Hence, a parent may not like that their child learns about "a prince marrying a prince", but they should accept it nonetheless.

Well that's the thing about America- people are quite willing and able to tell off the government for no better reason than they feel like it, and we wouldn't have it any other way. We also tend to be willing to tell off other people because we feel like it, hence the strong resistance to such things as hate crimes laws. Considering the First Amendment, in America the people have a right to object to anything the government does and scream about it as loud as they care to.

For that matter, this troper wonders why anyone would feel it necessary to be 'taught': "Some people are gay, and in recent historical developments, now they can be married. Lesson's over kids, come back tomorrow"?

I think the main objection here is, with America being a predominately Christian nation, a lot of parents are concerned that something they see as abnormal or just plain wrong is being taught as a perfectly normal counterpart to traditional sexuality and marriage. If it was simply taught as part of a history lesson, I think few would have a problem with it. However, many parents fear that allowing "liberal ideals" into the classroom will undermine their children's morals.

It's not so much that it's being taught, it's that it's being taught as ''normal''.

Yes, but I'm curious about these "gay marriage classes" themselves, and what exactly they teach; That it is "normal", and everyone sits down to watch a gay documentary about gay prejudice? Or do they teach the "how", step by step, with an inebriated pastor, rings and paperwork supplied for practice? Or is it just an elaborate excuse for the teacher to bum and let the students argue and call each other names for 45 minutes?

This troper finds that civilian guns bring up some incredibly strong values dissonance. It varies a lot between people ,families ,regions countries, religions, and even years. To some people, owning a gun, even a military assault rifle, is perfectly okay, reasonable, and understandable. For others, even a .22 pistol is cause for serious alarm and they wouldn't even want to see a picture of a gun in their house. For example, if I walked around with my AK out and loaded on my back in the Shenandoah Blue Ridge area of Virginia, nobody would really care. However, if did the same in my local area in the NoVA (Northern Vrigina) area, people would be freaking the fuck out and I'd probably arrested and charged, if not outright killed and I'd definitely end up on the news.

This troper would have no problem with exterminating a sapient extraterrestrial species, or with another species exterminating us. The whole equation of speciesism with racism is a fallacy. It all started in the golden age of scifi when authors wanted to address racism, but had to use alien proxies because no editor in their right mind would have allowed it to be published. And it contiues to this day with Avatar and District 9 even though we can and have made movies about racism. All humans have roughly the same physical and mental capabilities, are capable of thinking alike, and can interbreed. But species that are alien to eachother may be so different that the way they express mathmatics may be incomprehensible to each other making communication impossible. Not to mention they may not be able to think alike because the structure of their brains are completely different. It's not a "humans are superior thing" as much as a humans and aliens are actually different thing.the sheer difference in morality and apperance would make war with alien races almost inevitable. There is no reason to guess that a sufficiently advanced alien race should share our appearance or biology. They might not be able to communicate or have any analogies to our multifarious cultures. At best there would be a Demiliterized Zone type of situation.

"...but see, they're ''really'' different from us! So it's okay to exterminate them!"

(Summary of the following clusterf*ck): Someone then asserted that morality is false, and a bunch of people disagreed until someone sensibly suggested the topic be discussed somewhere better suited for ''philosophical'' dissonance as opposed to ''values'' dissonance. The question of where has been moved to that tropers discussion page.

This troper has encountered this trope on a fair few forums, when the topic of healthcare of all things comes up. While it's common knowledge that the USA doesn't have free healthcare, it was a shock to find out that people were fine with this and were actually ''strongly opposed'' to the idea of not having to pay for medical treatment, even if they have ended up on the short end of the stick in the past. Understandably, the European and Canadian posters were flabbergasted by this.

This troper is flabbergasted that anyone would want to pay for something they could get for free.

Frequently, when you pay for something you have a bit more say in what form it takes, or so it seems to me.

You also get to avoid such things as people sticking their noses in places they don't belong.

We can't have it for free. We could pay for it with taxes, but that's hardly the same thing.

This attitude tends to grow out of the average American's ''huge'' distrust of government and the belief that government is full of {{Obstructive Bureaucrat}}s that will fill healthcare (or anything for that matter) with rationing and mountains of paperwork. We also tend to think that private individuals and companies will almost always to a better job at it.

We Americans also don't like being told what to do and would rather pay for a treatment that ''we'' have picked, then have the government decide how we will be treated for us.

There is also the additional tax hike that would come with nationalized healthcare. Americans ''hate'' taxes and don't like the idea of having to pay for someone else's problem, especially when that problem is the sick person's own fault.

From this Canadian troper's perspective, it's the private HMOs and health insurance companies that are the ones full of {{Obstructive Bureaucrat}}s who are rationing healthcare and burying patients and doctors alike under mountains of paperwork. And besides, aren't the private companies the ones deciding how you will be treated? I've read about Canadian doctors who went to the U.S. because they thought they made more money, but then turned around and ''came back to Canada'' because they got fed up with the IncompetenceInc nature of the U.S. health care industry that forced them to spend more time filling out forms than actually treating patients.

and YourMileageMayVary on whether or not it is just the sick person's problem. I'd like as few contagious people running around as possible, thank you very much. And it is hardly ever a person's fault if they get sick. I know that if you need care so badly you will die otherwise then you'll be willing to sell your house, go into debt or whatever it takes but...wouldn't you rather not have to resort to such drastic measures.

This troper has spent the last ''four years'' as carer for his mother, who has a cancer that struck completely out of the blue, unrelated to any direct cause in her lifestyle, diet or anything else. We've nonetheless managed to continue to live a comfortable existence, not exactly normal but as close to it as possible, thanks to living in a country with a decent nationalised healthcare system. Sorry if I offend anyone by saying this, but it comes across as ''unbelievably petty'' when Americans complain about nationalised health care meaning there are fewer choices -- forgetting that without it, people who can't afford health care under their system have ''no choice at all'' and thus are denied their basic human rights to dignity and quality of life. (It's also utter nonsense -- ''at no stage'' was my mother ''ever'' required to take a treatment without full discussion of the options and her choice being the most important consideration.)

Petty? A lot of people can barely afford healthcare for themselves and their families. Asking them to pay for healthcare treatment for a total stranger is completely ludicrous. Do you know how many people there are in this country?

I think the typical American view on universal healthcare can be summed up thusly: "There are millions of people who are sick but can't afford health care? Fuck 'em! ''I'm'' not sick, and ''I'' can afford it, so why should I care about those idiots? It's probably their own fault they're sick/poor anyway!"

That's just it, most Americans don't understand how national healthcare works, how much it would cost them in taxes, and what would be covered. People don't realize that the government pays a fraction of the cost for medical procedures and medication, and that the tax rise wouldn't cost them nearly as much as they think. It'd probably be less than their insurance currently costs them. Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation being spread around by people who are against national healthcare that plays right into people's fears, like the death panels that were so popular during election season. People think the government is going to give the bare minimum for a huge amount of money and leave the high and dry when they get cancer or pass a certain age even though that would be really stupid for the government to do.

For a lot of people, it ''is'' their own fault that they've gotten sick. Smokers? Alcohol abusers? People who run around doing reckless (and in some cases, illegal) things? Unprotected promiscuity? Those people ''are'' to blame for their own illness. And it ''would'' be nice if we could somehow provide affordable healthcare to every person. My problem is the idea that the government has to be involved and that it has to force people.

I know I'll take a lot of flack for this, but I hate the song ''Imagine'' by John Lennon. Television Without Pity put their finger on why I dislike it: it sounds like the theme song for the Cybermen. Once we remove all differences and anything worth fighting for, then we'll all live in peace! And life will be really boring! Honestly John, you can't just stop at getting rid of religion, nationalism and personal property. People will still find ways to sin against each other. You're basically talking about smoothing the sharp edges off of human nature itself. As someone who sees HumansAreFlawed as one of the reasons that life is worth living, Lennon seems to be singing about TheEvilsOfFreeWill. TakeThat moronic 60s idealism!

So Man's greed, racial conflict and own dickyness is what makes life worth living? okaaayy...

There's a key difference between removing humans dickyness about their differences and removing those differences altogether.

This troper asserts that the question is too complicated by the subjective nature of the concepts of 'dickyness', 'worth', the origin of conflict, etc. to ever be adequately resolved.

This troper dislikes that song, too. At first, she thought it was for the "no heaven" part, because the idea of heaven is (while probably not strictly traditional) very important to her. Then, it dawned on her - the real problem she had with the song was more the idea of the world being "as one." It wouldn't be as much of a problem if it was a kind of loving one another while still retaining diversity kind of one-ness (one that allowed people to believe in heaven, for instance), but as it is, it sounds so... Borg-like. Maybe if the world "lives as one" some of us will retreat to a mountaintop somewhere away from the world so we can enjoy being ourselves.

I have relatives who live in Texas, and they like to go hunting and send us pictures of the things they kill. Most of my family think this is horrifying.

This troper has a few examples.

For one thing, I don't see why anyone would want to prevent people from expressing wrong or even evil opinions. If an opinion is not presented, it will never be argued against, and people will never hear the arguments against it, so they will forget why it is wrong over the generations, and when someone poes pormote it, no-one will be able to prove that it is wrong. This often puts me in the bizzare position of being an atheist sympathising with creationists.

Very nice argument, and I must acquiesce with it - except when it comes to the exceptions. First off the top of my head is the little incident when my dad found out my little brother thought there was a man in the sky called God. Turns out he was told that in school, and dad had to spend a long time undoing the damage, if you will - explaining why a boy in first-grade shouldn't listen to his teachers, as it were. We can argue forever what seperates indoctrination from expressing an opinion, so let's not, and don't even think about arguing religion!

The idea that that constitutes 'damage' (apart from the fact that teachers really aren't supposed to be imposing their religious beliefs) is itself ValuesDissonance.

Giving people false information can be very damaging.

The "false information" part is again ValuesDissonance for a large segment of the population.

"I don't see why anyone would want to prevent people from expressing wrong or even evil opinions"... Umm, mate... you do realise that no one prevented the creationists from expressing their opinions? Indeed, this troper would argue that the creationist movement had a DAMN GOOD run for how scant and shaky the evidence they were able to scrape together was... They were able to take their case to court, had their views heard by judges and all throughout the media and their views were seriously considered to be included in school science tuition. Ultimately, "intelligent design" was delcared not to be scientifically valid, which, based on the facts and evidence the judges were shown, was the only reasonable conclusion they could draw. So ultimately the creationists correctly lost the right to force their unvalidated views into science courses that deal with validated scientific therom, but DAMN did their voices ever get heard! So I really have to ask, where exactly is this "prevent people from expressing opinions" thing coming from? I certainly hope it isn't just the creationism movement, as it is, in fact, a shining example of freedom of speech in action.

In addition, I find the whole idea of patriotism or identity politics and such absurd. I didn't choose where I was born or who I'm descended from, why should I feel any loyalty to either.

Because it doesn't matter that you didn't choose it. It's still who you are.

You shouldn't be loyal to anything but things you chose for yourself.

and finally, an example that actually caused problems. In relative terms, how evil are the following things that a bully did to me in high school. 1- made extremely racist statements, knowing that I have ChronicHeroSyndrome and will object in an emotional way, which he finds hilarious. 2- spread rumors that I am racist for the same reason. 3- Spout religious dogma at me knowing that I am an atheist for the same reason. 4- constantly support historical and fictional tyrants, and ideologies that he knew I considered evil up to and including quoting NineteenEightyFour at me, for the same reason. 5- quote thing I said in a stupid voice. 6-offer to give me a lap dance, hopefully for the same reason. To me the last was so much less offensive (slightly {{squick}}y vs evil or insulting), that I didn't even bother reporting it. To the teachers, the last was sexual abuse and because of that automatically worse then any other kind of abuse. Too bad they didn't hear about that until they were already inclined to be on his side due to the fact that I had started several fights.

Wow, that'd be hilarious if it wasn't... you know. But seriously, while I don't really know all the variables, it sounds like this guy spends a lot of time and energy on you. Maybe he ''was'' hoping you answer yes to that last one. Anyway, to answer. -1: He's a douchebag. -2: That's serious. You are permitted to slander right back. -3: I myself wouldn't be very offended, just annoyed. -4: That last one with 1984 sounds rather like he's making a strawman of himself, that is if your views on free speech are an indication of where you stand in the political relations in that book... but otherwise the same as 3. There's too many idiots in the world to do anything but ignore them. -5: He's an unimaginative douchebag. -6: Yeah, I'd pretty much just be squicked, too.

Honestly? I wouldn't even think to call any of the bully's actions "evil," and I would probably see you as being in the wrong for starting "several fights" if by that you mean physical altercations.

I agree with the above comment. The bully's actions sound less evil and more the bully just being stupid. You starting a fist fights and physically hurting someone is worse.

This toper saw a "Become a Fan of" option on Facebook about how Phil and Lil's mom on ''Rugrats'' was apparently a lesbian. Because you can't be a third wave feminist in a mid-Nineties show without liking women.

Well, it would be hard to be a feminist if you dislike women. (Badum-TISH!)

I, a Korean-American, have a lot of fun telling my horrified, not-Asian friends about the awesomeness of public baths, how you're basically naked in front of other naked strangers, and that the one of the main points is that you're supposed to do it with friends/family. Then they get more horrified when I tell them there's several of these baths in New York. In an slight aversion, public baths are apparently starting to get more popular, as I've lately seen the baths full of people of various races.

This troper completely fails to see the attraction of public baths, although this is mainly because they neither trust or particuarly like other people, as well as preferring to have as many layers of fabric between themselves and the world as possible. To their mind, walking around starkers in public is just asking for trouble.

I also agree. I don't particularly want to see older people walking around with no clothes on. Maybe I'm shallow, but pass the brain bleach, please.

Well you see, it's terribly convenient if you happen not to have access to a private bath: Being homeless doesn't mean you have to be a bum, for example. And what about the obligatory wash before you jump into public swimming pools? Is there a lot of stalls, or do you wash up in your swimsuits?

Swimsuits of course. You get changed (usually in a cubicle), shower, walk through a little foot bath thing between the changing room and the pool, then get in the pool as quickly as possible. Quite a few people skip the shower part though, hence the large amount of chlorine in the pool. When you get out it's the same system in reverse. As for people who don't have access to a private bathroom, there are some showering facilities in cubicles available in various places where there's a need for them. Dossers and what not apparently either sneak into places like leisure centres to have showers or wash up in public toilets (according to what I've read anyway). There used to be public bathhouses but they've fallen out of use.

Wow. I was being sarcastic when I suggested swimsuited showers.

(Original poster) Chlorine? Hells no! You're supposed to shower first before getting into the tubs! The tubs are for soaking and relaxing! (And swimsuits are usually not allowed). Or maybe I should have been more specific about public baths in spas...

I remember a family vacation where one of the attractions near where we were staying was a Japanese-style bathhouse. My parents decided it would be a good bonding activity....Although I understand that although I see nothing wrong with families taking baths together in public bathhouses, I'd be lying if I said I felt 100% comfortable....

After hearing someone describe American history lessons as 'sanitized' this British troper came to the conclusion that attitudes regarding what is acceptable for children to learn about differ on either side of the pond, given that when they learnt about the Vikings in primary school (they would have been about eight or nine at the time), stuff like the mutilation of slaves, slaves being killed to be buried with their master and slavery itself were covered, among other things. Learning about the Eqyptians included fairly detailed descriptions of mummification, a trip to a reproduction of a 18th century port included descriptions and depictions of press ganging, naval discipline and the living conditions on ships, and an educational video on the Victorians that they watched in class when they were ten or eleven included depictions of child labor, corporal punishment and a child dying of cholera, among other things. And that was nothing compared to some of the stuff covered in secondary school, which before the age of fifteen included the Black Death, medieval execution methods and other punishments, a number of beheadings, the trans-Atlantic slave trade (in fairly graphic detail), trench warfare and the effects of gas attacks, and the Holocaust. This troper isn't sure, but they have a feeling that the above would make the average American have a fit.

As an American troper, I have to say that we do learn about that. The only thing that's really sanitized at my school is, of course, sex education, and only because it's an uber-Catholic private school. Of course, yes, there would be some boys and girls in my class who would have a fit about that, but they are the same people who think that you can't get pregnant if you aren't married.

I'm curious about how these "sanitized" lessons you were told about, because I can say they clearly didn't have the same history classes as I did. In third grade (ages 8-9) we were given a pretty graphic depiction of the slave trade and slavery in America, in fourth grade we watched a painfully realistic depiction of conditions for soldiers during the civil war including hospital conditions and POW camps, in fifth grade (10) we learned a lot about the holocaust in great detail-I had nightmares for weeks after we finished that unit-and in sixth grade (11-12) we studied ancient civilizations in all their gory glory. My history classes were not sanitized at all when I was younger. In middle school/jr. high I had geography, american government, and a world's culture class, so I didn't have a real history class again until I was 15. By that point the classes were more focused on the governments and the big picture than the gory little details.

This troper has had a lot of interesting generational values dissonance experience with his parents and grandparents. When I reacted with (mostly) shock to them referring to a girl walking past our car as a "pretty oriental," they were very offended at the concept that they couldn't call Asians "orientals." They sort of grumbled about political correctness and liberals not wanting them to be able to describe things. My dad also refers to black people as "blacks" pretty much exclusively, which would be a tad abrasive to some young people not used to it, but much more abrasive (if not at least strange-sounding) is when he says things like "Well, if I were a black."

On that subject, this troper found themselves mediating a large knot of confusion between British and American friends who suddenly learned the hard way that America and Britain treat the terms 'oriental' and 'asian' completely differently. Traditionally, Americans tend to be thinking of people from the 'Far East' when they say 'Asian'. Also, to them, 'Oriental' has a bad history that has led to it being regarded as an insulting term. However, in Britain, 'Asian' traditionally refers predominantly to people from South Asia and the term 'Oriental' has none of the negative connotations that it has in America. At one point, this troper's (British) Chinese friends were feeling very insulted by a group of Americans trying to tell them they were wrong to ''not'' feel insulted, while the Americans were appalled that they were not only not offended but defending the right to be called 'Oriental'. Meanwhile, this troper's (British) Indian friends were making the Americans even more confused by pointing out that everyone was fine with this because calling someone 'Asian' is more relevant (culturally) to them than to the (British) Chinese people they were arguing with. It was a headache to sort out at the time, but with hindsight a very interesting learning curve for everyone involved.

This troper, upon first attending a public university, was blown away by things such as giving out condoms in school, stand-off protests, and the ''vast'' amount of sex/drugs. These things were so common that this troper himself was ostracized for ''not'' taking part. Eventually, he fell in with a more open-minded crowd.

Wouldn't that actually be a more close-minded crowd? The people you described at the start are the open-minded ones.

No it wouldn't; the people he described at the start ostracized him because he had different values than they had. The open-minded crowd didn't mind that he had unusual values. (Of course, it could be that they shared his values and that's why they okayed him, but he doesn't say that.)

This troper recently had a very interesting conversation with his mother about the generation differences in how Americans view the "proper" stages of dating. My mother said that when she was in college, anyone who would be willing to live with their boyfriend/girlfriend before getting married would be completely ostracized for their immoral lifestyle. These days, people my age think that getting married to someone before you've been living together for at least a few years is practically like marrying a stranger.

This troper often notices the sheer lack of style and decency in today's youth. Lack of courtesy and discipline, as abuse of drugs, are also major problems. The fun fact? This troper is actually sixteen, one year younger than troper's class companions. This troper is also impressed by the dissonance between the values in Europe and Brazil, as Europeans in general are more polite and civilized than Brazilians. It might be because troper traveled to London, though.

Style?

Values Dissonance! This troper finds such arbitrarily defined values as "courtesy", "discipline", and "decency" to be absurdly subjective to the point of uselessness. Honestly? The fact she's not insulting your pants off or giving you the evil eye is implying respect, because she jokes around a lot, and when she genuinely does not respect someone, it's for a reason, and she's gonna show it, like it or not.

I'm going note I see all those problems in the generations before mine; We're just less full of shit about it. Most of my parent's generation are equally as rude and undisciplined. Drug abuse? I guess you're right there, the hippies that were part the prior generation would never abuse drugs. Style? Really? Even putting aside how subjective that is I'm going to say I find that their humor and most of their music is terrible.

This troper's house had a bedbug infestation. This created some values dissonance between the people living here, as some came from places where bedbugs aren't a big deal at all and figured that poisoning the damn things would be too much hassle. Meanwhile the rest of us were totally freaking out at every single dark spot we found...

I've never really understood why people look upon nudity as disgusting and are opposed to public nudity. I also feel like I hold more trust in the government than a lot of people.

Seconded by This Troper, who simply finds clothing uncomfortable (unless the alternative is more uncomfortable) and tries to wear as little clothing as possible while still retaining his 'modesty', which he barely cares for anyway.

This trope became an issue in this troper's previous relationship. She viewed love more casually than I did, which isn't saying much since after emotional attatchment (read: They trigger my dere-dere side) I prioritised her above everything else including survival and comfort. I saw her protection and her pursuit of happiness as my duty to facilitate and was very much the wannabe battle buttler. I suppose spending the majority of your life as a recluse does little for your emotional temperence beyond making you for the most part emotionless bar those few subjects that open the emotional floodgates.

This troperette doesn't shave her legs and often wears shorts. Men and women both have given me hell over this fact. I give women more of a pass on their hatefulness than I do most men. If a shaven person (usually a woman) goes on about the need to shave/how disgusting not to is/etc, at least, they're following what they preach. When an unshaven man in shorts go on about it, he's nothing but a bloody hypocrite. Either way, I don't give a flying frig if someone shaves or not and wish people of all genders would just, y'know, not look at my legs if it offends them so badly.

This troper likewise doesn't shave her legs and wears shorts, yet has never gotten any flak over it, which leads to the even stranger situation where people go on about how women ''must'' shave their legs or they're disgusting and unhygienic while not actually being able to tell the difference between a woman who shaves and a woman who doesn't.

This male troper prefers women who don't shave, which unfortunately seems to be a rarity.

I live in Virginia and worked for a locally owned company. Recently we were bought out by a company from Pennsylvania and they all came down for 2 weeks for the transition. After it was over my coworkers and I were shocked by how much those people swore. It's not like Virginians don't swear but we generally don't do it around strangers, coworkers or people we've just met (though I do it online all the time because, hey, it's the internet). But with those Pennsylvanians it was like "Nice to meet you. We're here to get you oriented. FUCK A MAILBOX. SHIT DAMN. ASS." It's like an entire company suffering from Tourette's.

I fucking love Pennsylvania /bornineriehugesteelersfan

This troper spent a few hours in Brindisi, in southern Italy. She had just come from Rome, where it seemed like as long as you weren't in a church you had to be more or less naked before anybody would consider you underdressed. She was wearing a tank top and kayaking shorts and during the walk from the bus stop to the port practically went deaf from all the honking and catcalls.

This troper considers the negative aspects of life to be necessary- something to fight, a foil for the positive things, and a test of character- and feels that a utopia would be bad. She often comes to blows about this "negative" atitude with her sister.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks like this. Sometimes I think that I'm the only one who still uses the word strength. To give a related TroperTale, one time I mentioned in a political science discussion group that I thought not voting was weak. I had to explain what I meant, they thought I meant that it weakend democracy or society or something.

This is true in regards to me and my own ''dad''. My dad is very conservative, whereas I am a proud liberal/progressive. To him, owning a gun is fine, but to me, it's crazy. Also, he's pro-life, I'm pro-choice, he thinks the draft would be a good idea, I think the draft should be unconstitutional. He likes fox news, I think they're the spawn of Satan. He agrees with the Arizona immigration law SB-1070, I think it's not only blatantly racist, but fascist as well. So yeah, you can see some tensions.

{{Livejournal}} communities. It certainly varies from com to com what is considered "acceptable". One moment, I'll be browsing a community where people are throwing around completely uncalled for and insensitive "jokes", and the next I'll browsing one where you practically have to walk on eggshells to avoid offending people. Since I watch a lot of communities, I'll often see posts from both extremes right next to each other.

This Troper gets this sometimes. She goes to a boarding school in Chicago, USA- but 25% of our students are Chinese, and another 10% from assorted other countries. Like any large urban area in America, there's a serious case of "Everyone is from somewhere else." She was surprised when a Chinese friend of hers commented on how many different ethnicities there were walking along the street, and the way so many of us have seriously screwed up ethnicities ourselves (such as my German, Dutch-Irish/Native American heritage. I count several Nazis, Vikings, Cheyenne warriors, and Irish potato farmers/railroad workers among my ancestors).

This Troper gets this a lot due to his pragmaticism. I will punch regardless of gender, I will eat someone else to avoid starving, I will bring a knife to a fist-fight, I will cheat, I will steal, and I will kill for personal gain. I don't believe in any sort of honor or respect; I only look at consequences. I don't murder people not because it "would be wrong", I don't murder people becuase if I do the authorities will be trying to imprision and/or kill me.

I don't have a problem with pragmaticism, but what about contractualism? If we all murdered each other for profit and giggles, society couldn't hold together. What's your perspective on this? And what about feelings - those pesky, irrational little things - would there not be a great risk of lifelong guilt and paranoia ("was that a siren!?"), or are you a supremely confident sociopath (no offence meant)?

Weather. Just...weather. I've had to stop mentioning numbers when I complain about the weather around internet forums, because people will just get their panties in a bunch and give me shit because my area's temperature - 20 degrees Celsius so happens to be their temperature in the middle of summer or whatever.

This troper (an Australian living in Melbourne, known for its weather extremes) has been known to express his surprise at British people who seem to think that 25 or even 20 degrees Celcius is very hot, which to this troper is only warm... 35, on the other hand, now THAT is very hot for this troper... Agreed that weather's an easy one to get Values Dissonance over, in other words.

This (British) troper disagrees. For me, 20C is uncomfortable to be out in, whereas my mother would probably still be wearing multiple layers. It's not ''values'' dissonance, it's an actual difference in our metabolisms.

This troper once believed that two guys kissing each other meant they were both straight, as it was mostly done for RuleOfFunny. But now I consider it largely unthinkable.

This troper from the United States of America has always had trouble understanding how anyone from any number of other countries could stand having their government outlaw firearms and other weapons. It's not even just a matter of hunting rights or self-defense against criminals to this troper, it's also a matter of the possible need to take up arms against a corrupt government. Of course, that's a big debate even in America; some people think that patriotism means supporting the government no matter what it does. This troper considers himself patriotic, but keeps in mind that the nation was founded by people who were, essentially, traitors.

How would regular weapons work against tanks and such? A corrupt government would have access to those (and much worse) unlike the people rebelling against them.

You've just made a good argument for civilian ownership of anti-tank missiles.

This (fellow American) troper has to agree with the original troper. For the most part, I agree with the sentiment that gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. It could be that we Americans have a different stance on guns because they're such a big part of our history. Remember, Americans in general tend to be far more distrustful of our government than maybe other countries. Maybe that's part of the problem?

Back when i was little me and every single kid i knew sometimes got (mild) physical punishment if we did something bad. As long as we knew we were not supposed to do it i don't remember ever feeling it to be unfair or affecting anyone for much more than a couple of days. Also if you got into a physical fight in school you just had to make up in front of the teacher and if there was no serious injury that was it. Nowadays apparently it's the #1 cause of becoming a serial killer / violent criminal / drug adict / hating everyone - you name it. Phew good thing we didn't know yet we were supposed to turn out that way !

Same here. Not about the physical fights, mind, because I've always avoided fights whenever possible. But my parents spanked me and my siblings when we were young, and if we'd done something really bad, they used a big wooden spatula to drive the point home. I don't understand people complaining how laying a single hand on your kid is automatically horrible. There's a difference between child abuse and legit punishment for doing bad stuff, and neither my body nor my ideals or morals came to lasting harm. So, yeah ... agree.

My father once gave a medical presentation in Japan. He's an Argentinian who immigrated to the United States, and he enjoys light humor in his department. When giving the presentation, however, not a single person in the audience smiled or laughed; my father was crushed. Later that day, he talked to some of the Japanese physicians, and it turned out that they loved his talk; they just didn't want to be impolite by not taking it seriously. That trip was full of values dissonance, really.

Most people think the idea of paying as much as $50 for a 30-minute game sounds silly. Paying as much as $1,000 for such a game barrels straight from silly to a crime worse than genocide. Other people, on the other hand, see no problem with this. talking about {{shmup}}s.

My friend's Chinese mother went ballistic one day when she found out my friend had borrowed a pair of another friend's shoes. She then started shouting at her, saying, "Chinese people don't do that! It's dirty!" and so on. This was all helped by the fact that my friend does not even see herself as (culturally) Chinese, as she was born and raised in Northern Ireland. However as her parents are very Chinese, I think this sort of conflict happens in her family a lot.

This Troper's elderly art teacher often uses sexist language in class. (things like "mankind" instead of "humanity" and "man-made" for "artificial".) He also has nineteen posters depicting artists from the past. Of them, only ONE is a woman.

On the other hand, most people treat "mankind" and "humanity" as absolute synonyms with no difference in connotation, and never make the connection to gender at all. Nor would many people find it odd to see a skewed gender ratio in posters of historical artists, since for most of history the gender ratio among famous artists was extremely skewed. So while many would read your story and perceive the teacher as sexist, many others would read your story and see a rabid feminist ripping on their poor old teacher. ValuesDissonance indeed.

Strongly agree with this. When I read "mankind and man-made are so sexist!" my immediate reaction was "...What." The straw feminism seems to be very strong in this one.

I'm sorry, but I'm a male and I agree fully that saying "mankind" or "man-made" instead of "humankind" or "artificial" ''is'' implicitly sexist. What's so difficult about being inclusive? Of course, the fact that most of artists from the past on those posters mentioned were male probably reflects more on the fact that, for much of history, just about everything was male dominated. And, of course, your art teacher (who is "elderly" as you put it) is probably just speaking the way he grew up speaking: that excuses him, but it doesn't excuse younger people who continue to act as if half of humanity doesn't exist.

I'm sorry, but how exactly does saying "mankind" imply that I think half of humanity doesn't exist? Look up "man" in a dictionary: you'll find that "male human" isn't its sole definition, and it is clearly not the definition implied in words like "mankind" and "man-made." And inb4 "but the fact that you're using 'man' to refer to all people is sexist!", maybe that was the original intent of the word, but you know what? The word "husband" originally meant "master of the house," but you don't see anyone foaming at the mouth over how horrendously sexist this is, because ''the word isn't used in this sense anymore.''

This college troper was in a debate class once when a classmate said that anyone who drew/performed in/accepted blackface was a terrible person. I looked up and told her simply that things were different back then (as she specifically mentioned the time period) and that no one saw it as a big deal. She proceeded to get angry and saw it is a big deal, I told her that back then it wasn't really, it was everywhere...She then said that the Disney Company, Warner Brothers, etc were terrible racist companies for their older cartoons (such as the WWII cartoons and {{Fantasia}}). Yet again, I said times were different and that alone didn't make the whole companies racist--everyone was doing that. (I know "Everyone's doing it" is a terrible excuse, but...) This went on for a few minutes until she threw her things in her bag and stormed out of class.

Actually, I agree with the girl.

This troper agrees with the troper, because this is the whole trope. Back then, it wasn't considered racist.

I believe in the legalisation of narcotics. I rarely even take over-the-counter pain reliever for headaches, and I will never take something significantly mind-altering unless told I need to by a physician. My reasons for wanting legalisation range from not seeing how a person taking something in the privacy of his or her own home, where only the taker and the taker's property risk harm, is a danger to society at large, the overpopulation of prisons by non-violent offenders, some addicts afraid to get help due to fear of legal charges or a person dying of an overdose may refuse to call for medical help due to the same fears, the fact prohibition creates people like Al Capone, the fact weapons sometimes get mixed in, the fact people die of overdoses due to shoddily made batches, and the fact prohibition simply does not work as intended and causes more addicts and crime than regulation would. I also come very a very conservatively Christian family which lives in a town full of people just like them. Needless to say, it's not a good idea to talk to anyone, including my mother (who knows how I feel and makes her disapproval clear), about some of my more liberal political views.

This troper, being mostly an inhabitant of the internet, finds it frustrating how much more open-minded he is than many people within his own family and town. The town I live in is one of those places where everyone is white, straight, "normal", and either religious or atheist in a religious family. I am white, bi, I crossdress and am quite open about it and am Agnostic. Agnosticism doesn't seem to be a concept here except for me.

In a related example, my girlfriend lives in a different country (we're currently long distance but planning on seeing eachother soon) and we both get constantly surprised by the differences in culture. For example, she owns and has fired several guns, whereas I live in the UK, where a lot of people go their entire lives without ever even ''seeing'' a firearm.

This Chinese troper, along with many of his compatriots believe that spay/neuter of pets is inhumane and advocating for that is betraying animal welfare.

This Troper went from a liberal charter school in the middle of the city to a suburban Catholic private high school, and sees a HUGE amount of this. Most of the differences come down to almost everyone at my old school being a Democrat, and everyone at my new school being a Republican. (There are other differences, too... Old school was INSANELY strict about violence, and pushing someone could get you suspended. When I first started out, I got beaten up on a lot because I wasn't used to fighting back...)

On a related note, This (Australian) Troper is constantly confused by America's very categorised politics (ie, they are either 'Liberal' or 'Conservative').

This troper has caused me to despise the Ancient Romans and the Middle Ages, regarding the Romans as a race with a LackOfEmpathy and a sadistic sense of pleasure when initiating punishments, while the other as a CorruptChurch run civilization of insanely prejudiced people. It made me hate most of mankind.

My family look down on me for loving Pokemon. Not my age, but Pokemon itself. BUT! My brother gets to play ''GrandTheftAuto'' and the like without a word! Pokemon: cute animals and friendships! GTA: BLOOD HOOKERS MORE BLOOD THE MAFIA EVEN MORE BLOOD! *headdesk* I cannot wait to move out of here, seriously.

This troper, after browsing through the TooSoon page, thought that maybe the media was a bit too sensitive to the events. I mean censoring things that involve the WTC that comes out for a while is kinda fair, going back several years and censoring things that involve it is stretching it but... ok. Censoring damn near everything that even vaguely had anything to do with that day is a tad silly. "Oh look that building exploded, just like 9/11, we should probably censor it, lest people use their BatDeduction to discover that a show from over 15 years ago depicting an exploding building is suppose to be an analog to a terrorist attack that just happened."

This troper is kind of an ideological hedonist, who thinks that anything that individual desire is the central point of existence. So he can understand and enjoy some stuff that others think are "sick and twisted," like IncestSubtext, ScrewTheRulesIHaveMoney (as something correct), and HeroicSociopath (again, as someone to look up to). But he gets revolted by things like religion, environmentalism, and "trying to make the world a better place."

This troper has a few, some that are apparently so "out there" that i come off as some kind of alien. One of the biggest ones in my family is hunting. For one, i'd like to say that i support gun ownership and i've been instructed in the use of Firearms, to the point where i have really good aim and can take apart most guns safely. thing is, i hate guns. not because they're dangerous, its more because i feel they're loud and ugly. So when my dad gave me a rifle to hunt a deer i was already a bit on edge about it. when we found a deer to kill i lined up the sights and told my dad i wasn't going to do it, not because i had a moral objection to killing it, but because it just didn't seem fair. i have a high powered rifle, the deer has...antlers. i eventually compromised to hunt with a simple bow (I told my dad i wasn't going to hunt anything unless it was with a knife!) and after i bagged a doe i decided i wasn't going to hunt ever again. i didn't get any pleasure from killing it even though it was a challenge and i didn't need to kill it to eat. just one of the many "oddities" that's distanced myself with my family.

This troper managed to find a book on sociology that was written in the 1980's. Who knew things were so different back then? In those days, the voiceovers for advertisements were AlwaysMale, women still earned less than men (a woman with ''1-3 years'' of college$15,600 would still earn less than a man who never finished high school$17,500!), and the word "misandry" wasn't even coined yet, at least according to the book: #QUOTE# "...There is no such word [for "hatred of males"]." #QUOTE# "...although English includes words for hatred of females (misogyny) and the hatred of all people (misanthropy), there is no such word for the hatred of males."