this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2025
455 points (98.5% liked)

Funny: Home of the Haha

7607 readers
632 users here now

Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.

Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!

Our Rules:

  1. Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.

  2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.

  3. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.


Other Communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 23 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

First thing that comes to mind for me is the huge number of people who are religious fanatics here, which is unusual for a Western country. This is also a big part of what led us to the fascist government we have today.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 8 points 6 hours ago (5 children)

I think you’ve kinda missed the lede - religious fanatics. We’ve got plenty of those. Other western countries have quite a few religious people, but they aren’t often in-your-face cross wearing, “I’m a Christian”, openly judgy Karens like they are here.

[–] jawa21@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 hours ago

Fuck you, Jerry Falwell. Fuck you.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 hours ago

I specified religious fanatics because they're the problem, not religious people in general.

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

in Europe, someone tells me their are Christian or are wearing a cross, it's no big deal.

in the US, it's a massive red flag

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Over there it’s usually as part of a conversation. Here it’s a cudgel.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago

You’re right, they misspelled fuckheads.

[–] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Look at the nutjobs that were the backbone of what became America. Basically a bunch of puritan nutjobs who didn't like how laissez faire England was becoming so they hopped on the boat to America so they could make their puritanical paradise.

Y'all are just noticing it now which is a failure of the education system. Then again we already know this.

Thoughts and prayers to America 🙏🏾

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

The puritans were run out of England after how badly they ran it during the interregum. It was the Netherlands from whence they fled religious tolerance.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

You’re not wrong. It wasn’t for “freedom of religion”, it was for freedom of their religion.

[–] ileftreddit@piefed.social 10 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

MKULTA and COINTELPRO were pretty wild. Operation Northwoods as well. And the FBI basically admitted to assassinating Dr King. By the 1990s they learned to eliminate the paper trails, so probably no telling who actually knew what regarding 9/11 or the 20 trillion dollars that vanished into thin air during Iraq and Afghanistan

[–] onslaught545@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

I've always maintained that we let 9/11 happen to drum up public support to spin up the war machine and further the conservative plot to take over the country. I don't think we orchestrated it, but I do think we knew and looked the other way.

We did it with Pearl Harbor, so it's 100% within the realm of possibility that we did it with 9/11.

[–] ddplf@szmer.info 1 points 7 minutes ago

Can you elaborate about the Pearl Harbor?

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

don't forget the CONTA scandal, illegally financing violent drug cartels to flood black streets with drugs, to sell missiles to Iran and fill private prisons with black people for slave labour.

it sounds like made up BS.

[–] ileftreddit@piefed.social 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Oh yeah, fairly recently (last 10 years or so) a private jet owned by a CIA shell company went down stuffed to the gills with cocaine. They were 100% responsible for the crack epidemic and the “war on drugs” aka war on POC

Ronald Reagan switching sides on the war of drugs such a twist.

and he was right "we do not negotiate with terrorists" he meant he doesn't negotiate, he just gives them what they want

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 0 points 3 hours ago

So nobody is going to address the missing Rs? Cool cool cool cool cool.

CIA needs to be abolished, and everyone in the CIA who did anything illegal or incredibly unethical needs to be prosecuted for it (if they did illegal stuff in allied nations then extradited).

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 43 points 10 hours ago

What am I gonna do about it?

Listen here you bastard: Nothing, that's what!

Oh wait, that's probably why they keep doing it.

[–] deadcatbounce@reddthat.com 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

That they live in the 18th century with 21st century things. Religious fanatics all referring to the devil in him and Jesus saved him - separation of church and state but there's references to god everywhere and politicians don't get elected until they're reciting lumps of the Bible in every speech.

[–] sk1nnym1ke@piefed.social 21 points 10 hours ago (9 children)

As a German I don't understand why the USA basically do have two political parties. I know there are technically other parties but they have no impact.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Because they don't do proportional voting like you Germans or we Austrians do, most of their elections (and all federal ones) have one winning candidate in a state or congressional district.

And there is mostly not even a requirement for 50% of the vote, but the candidate with most votes wins. That creates the two party system.

The parties in the US are much broader than in our countries, it's very common for different members of the same party to vote against each other.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Exactly, what that means is that we have a tactical concern where the more voters represented by an elected official and the more disparate they are the worse of an idea it is for you specifically to split a vote. That's actually why Abraham Lincoln (the guy who was president during our civil war and oversaw the abolition of chattel slavery) won his election.

This creates the irony of it being somewhat common to have a lot of differing meaningful political choices for city council, third parties being not rare in state government, third parties being very rare in the national congress (though some independents will happen, notably from weird states like Vermont, which is a very rebellious in a cool way state), and third parties only win the presidency in times of calamatous upheaval. For context the last time a third party won the presidency is the election I linked earlier in this comment, half the country went to literal war over that result.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 82 points 10 hours ago (4 children)
  1. Because first past the post electoral systems always result in a 2 party system due to defensive voting.

  2. Because Americans didn't listen to George Washington, when during his farewell address he strongly cautioned against "alternate domination" of a 2 party system.

  3. Because Americans are woefully uneducated, dis-interested, and preoccupied.

[–] dylanmorgan@sh.itjust.works 11 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

There’s some structural reasons (the senate, primarily) that American politics will almost inevitably devolve into two parties.

If I could do one thing to fix American politics it would be to abolish the senate, which gives low population states an insanely unbalanced level of influence over national politics.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

It drives me ls me crazy that Alaska gets the same amount of senate votes as California when we’re fifty times their population.

[–] dylanmorgan@sh.itjust.works 9 points 7 hours ago

Wyoming too, which has even fewer people than Alaska.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

(the senate, primarily)

Fair point! In Canada our senate is appointed by the Prime Minister and the position is lifetime. They rarely reject bills from the lower house.

[–] dylanmorgan@sh.itjust.works 5 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Wow, I didn’t realize there even was a Canadian senate, I only ever hear about parliament and figured it was all MPs.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 hours ago

Exactly lol. All commonwealths have an upper and lower house just like the USA. I believe their senates are appointed as well, though I have not verified that.

[–] Goodmorningsunshine@lemmy.world 19 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

And because now that it's entrenched, the two parties will collude even past the death of the country to keep it that way

[–] AngryRobot@lemmy.world 15 points 8 hours ago

This comment from another post here on Lemmy says it all.

I was listening to the 5-4 podcast recently and they repeatedly stressed the point that Trump has lost ≈90% of lower court decisions and won ≈90% of Supreme Court decisions, which is an absurd swing. I’ll try to dig up a source on it though. Still it’s blatantly obvious that the SC has completely abandoned the rule of law and the constitution.

Without rule of law, we're no longer a country.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 7 hours ago

Because first past the post electoral systems always result in a 2 party system due to defensive voting.

Nope. FPTP is the norm worldwide and two party systems very much the exception. Even in the US, it's only been the last third or so of the country's history that two have managed to become so all-conquering in spite of being so unrepresentative.

George Washington, when during his farewell address he strongly cautioned against "alternate domination" of a 2 party system.

Pretty sure he was very much against the concept of political parties in general, rather than having any preference as to how many.

But yeah, the two major parties HAVE pretty much embodied all his worries and more..

Because Americans are woefully uneducated, dis-interested, and preoccupied.

That's a big part of the problem, sure, but the issues of regulatory capture and the two parties themselves being in charge of how the entire system works (including the barriers to entry for everyone else) is MUCH more critical.

[–] TachyonTele@piefed.social 3 points 10 hours ago

Didn't Jackson warn about point 2 as well? Or was it Jefferson? Someone did, and it also went unheeded (or used as a blueprint.)

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 20 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

It is actually 2 flavors of the same party. The USA is a one-party state, controlled by the capitalist party.

EDIT: lol you can downvote me while you decide whether you want to vote for the Israel-defending-capitalist-that-ran-on-"securing"-the-border or the other Israel-defending-capitalist-that-ran-on-"securing"-the-border 🤪

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 3 points 9 hours ago

two the two people who downvoted this person, it's true though. any two party system is a one party system where all government decisions are made long before we find out about them as the politicians form coalitions within their parties. the republicans didn't become MAGA in 2016. they became MAGA in 2014 and 2015. 2016 was just them announcing their coalition

[–] denial@feddit.org 9 points 10 hours ago

"Winner takes it all" makes it inherent to the system. They really really need to change that. But that is hard, when it keeps the only two relevant partys in power.

[–] Ptsf@lemmy.world 7 points 10 hours ago

Google "Gerrymandering". It'll all come together.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 7 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Oh man, I'm not sure how to condense this much context.

  1. Since the days when the USA was economically reliant on slavery for land development and market growth, the US population has been split over the issue of race and ethnicity. Even before that, the USA was founded by religious conservatives fleeing the church reforms in Europe. "Freedom of Religion" was put into the constitution not to separate church and state but to protect church from state. Because of these very strong and very harmful ideologies, naturally the people split into two camps: for ethnonationalism or against.

  2. The US Constitution is very old. The USA as a country is very young, but it's still one of the oldest democratic systems of government still in use today. It is very flawed: utilizing the electoral college, capping the seats in the house, each state with wildly different population getting two senators, the senate confirming judges, and worst of all "first past the post" ballots. In hindsight a lot of this is terrible for a functioning democracy, but the ethnonationalist party doesn't really like democracy anyways so it's going to take a supermajority to fix it, if you even believed the opposition party were motivated to fix it.

It's kind of like how the Weimar Republic was before the Nazis took over. There is a united hard right party and then theres the SPD. You COULD split the SPD's influence into farther left and communist parties, but then if they don't individually have enough seats they fail to form a government the Nazis have opportunity to become majority in the face of continued inaction from the government.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

but the ethnonationalist party doesn’t really like democracy anyways so it’s going to take a supermajority to fix it, if you even believed the opposition party were motivated to fix it.

In other words literally never going to happen. The electorate has been hand picked by legalized gerrymandering that getting a supermajority is less likely to happen than getting bitten by a shark that's getting struck by lightning as you're winning the lottery :(

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

Idk, we came close for like 3 months in the 2010-2011 congress.

We cod get 67 DNC in the midterms if we magically voted out all 20 Republicans, which would be very cool if unlikely.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 6 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

They have no impact for several reasons, but one weird thing about us Americans is that we're never happy. The Clinton years were peace and prosperity. Nope! Not having any more of that, in comes Bush. We did well enough with Obama. Nope! In comes Trump.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 3 points 10 hours ago

I don't know about Bush, but the people who voted for Trump decidedly did not do well enough with Obama. Radical wealth redistribution is necessary to fix American society and Obama was not that.

[–] Diddlydee@feddit.uk 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Don't you only have like 3 who are usually I'm the running?

[–] Prox@lemmy.world 6 points 10 hours ago

That's 50% more parties!

[–] bacon_pdp@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

We have first past the post voting, not ranked choice or star voting

[–] Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

We'd rather have lots of things to whine about on the Internet so long as we don't throw their vote away. Same shit. Every time.

Well. That sucked. Let's do it again!

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 4 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Weirdest thing? It's the guns. Definitely the prevalence of guns in the hands of civilians.

Oh. And also how they eat as if their healthcare was affordable.

[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 6 points 9 hours ago

Criticizing how we eat is like criticizing how the pigs in the farm eat.

We're not here to be healthy. We're livestock. Our health only matters insofar as it affects the bottom line.

[–] BorisBoreUs@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

....better to never surface hard truths. Ought to keep them buried like authoritarian regines. /s

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›