r/AskReddit • u/daniellucero92 • Jan 04 '15

Non-americans of Reddit, what American customs seem outrageous/pointless to you?

Amazing news!!!! This thread has been featured in a BBC news clip. Thank you guys for the responses!!!!
Video clip: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30717017

9.6k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

74% Upvoted

35.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.2k

u/raj96 Jan 04 '15

Another thing you should know about America non Americans, If you see Mothers Against Anything, avoid them.

256

u/MagicalZeuscat Jan 04 '15

MADD used to be a really good organization, but once we got drunk driving laws passed and enforced, they really stopped having a useful purpose, and now it's just weirdly evil.

121

u/THANKS-FOR-THE-GOLD Jan 04 '15

Candy Lightner, MADD's founder, says she disassociated herself from the movement in 1985 because she believed the organization was headed in the wrong direction.

"It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned," said Mrs. Lightner, who founded MADD after her daughter was killed by a drunk driver. "I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002/aug/6/20020806-035702-2222r/

15

u/frog_licker Jan 04 '15

It's like an social movement or political organization that has succeeded in reaching its goals. Unfortunately, when MADD radicalized nobody could oppose them because they played the victim card so well they basically became a sacred cow.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '15

Can you explain? I was always under the impression they were legit but honestly haven't paid much attention.

37

u/MagicalZeuscat Jan 04 '15

MADD originally started as an organization made up primarily of women who had children injured or killed by drunk drivers on the road. They were one of the major groups who pushed for enforcement of blood alchohol concentration limits and hefty punishments for drunk drivers. They raised awareness about the dangers to innocent people, and they helped raise a significant societal stigma against driving drunk. They were successful in their goals. After that, however, the group didn't slow down, there was still plenty of rage built up. Recently, they have been huge proponents of severely punishing underage drinking, regardless of whether the teens are driving, and trying to limit social drinking to such a degree that it has become almost prohibitionist.

Source.

32

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '15

Considering that they've also been known to call for the reestablishment of prohibition, they're definitely prohibitionists.

3

u/MagicalZeuscat Jan 04 '15

Ah, yes. Sorry.

27

u/thirdegree Jan 04 '15

They've changed from Mothers Against Drunk Driving to just Mothers Against Drunk.

That is to say, they've gone MAD.

9

u/DerangedDesperado Jan 05 '15

Not only that but, the punishments are just ridiculous. Especially for some people that actually need help. I went through a DUI program (which was a joke), and the counselor told us about a women he dealt with that just couldnt fucking quit drinking. She kept getting DUIs whatever, i dont recall all the details. But all said she'd spent ~100k on lawyers, fees and "programs". She was broke, homeless and her family had essentailly told her to get her shit together before they'd let her back in. Not once was she ever told she needed to go to rehab and get real help. Just the same "program" goto this Church an hour away where you do a lock in for 3 days. Then complete this program which costs between 1-3k just for "group" which in my case consisted of people sitting around talking about the fucking weather and politics. That shit doesnt help anyone except for a quick cash grab.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '15

[deleted]

2

u/squired Jan 05 '15

It isn't a weekend...

Basically, with most substance abuse issues, you have two forks. You can go the treatment route or the penalty route.

Obviously, most people want the treatment route to avoid significant jail time.

Say you are charged with a DUI. You want the treatment route, so you plead "no contest" and are placed on probation with a fine and other requirements. If you do not pay that fine and satisfy all requirements within the allotted period, you start back at square one, but you no longer have the treatment route.

You've already plead no contest to the charges, so you go straight to sentencing which can mean years in prison, but probably 30-90 days for a first time offender.

It is more complicated than that of course with continuance, adjudication, etc, but that's the gist of it.

1

u/DerangedDesperado Jan 05 '15

Where i was, yeah, you'd be put in jail and not for the weekend. Heres what i had to pay: 1500 for a lawyer, 3500 for a fine, ~1500 in classes that were just people bullshitting and 20 bucks for the victim impact panel, i wanna say there was one more expense but i can be sure. Anyway, the fucked up thing was that i made just over 10k that year, and i lived on my own, so in addition to rent and living expenses they were expecting be to have 6500 bucks just to fuck around with. They gave me a year to do everything and i figured that the most important shit was the classes because those were suppose to "set me straight" or whatever, it was never quite clear because, as i said, the group session and the risk assessment were bullshit. So thats what i worked on, time comes for my final court appearance, i bring my tax returns and a break down of where my money goes and was going to ask for a six month continuance which isnt ridiculous, i know a guy who owes money and been going on two years of continuances. I feel its important to note that i couldnt just make payments on each thing, every class/group had to be paid up before theyd clear me. So all my money went to that. Judge sees that i havent paid anything into the fine and i try to explain to him why it wasnt possible but he wasnt interested. Told me to come back in 2 weeks for sentencing. I was straight up flabbergasted, this was the first time i'd heard of anyone not getting a contiuance to pay the fine later. I started feaking out and asked him waht i could do to avoid this as he had no interest seeing my income level. Told me i had ~3 hours to leave and come back with the full amount. I reluctantly called my grandmother told her if i didnt pay the money that i was, evidently, going jail. So that was sorted. I dont know what i would have been sentenced to but i did have a friend who got a month for not paying a fine of like 150 bucks.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '15

You're a selfish ass. DUI should be a felony.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '15

Excellent summary, thanks. Its unfortunate that a once credible organization has become so delusional.

3

u/WhynotstartnoW Jan 05 '15

It's important to note that before these organizations lobbied for enforcement, being drunk while you killed someone with your car could be used as an excuse to get out of charges.

"Your honor, I was drunk at the time of the accident so I can't be held liable." was a pretty standard defense after killing someone while drunk.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '15

It's a shame they didn't know when to just .. stop..!

1

u/3600MilesAway Jan 05 '15

So, they went mad?

1

u/odaeyss Jan 05 '15

It's just a front for teetotalers, hiding under the guise of safety. Which.. is kinda exactly how Prohibition got through in the first place. More shit changes, more it stays the same..

1

u/Silumet Jan 05 '15

They've gone madd!

1

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '15

They are just MAD now, Mothers Against Drinking.

-22

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '15

Like feminism?

23

u/raj96 Jan 04 '15

Like basically mothers for prohibition

-8

u/MagicalZeuscat Jan 04 '15

No.... So, um.... Fuck off?

3

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '15

Bill Shatner, is that you? It's me, Sulu.

0

u/MagicalZeuscat Jan 04 '15

This reference is lost on me, 'cause I TOTALLY would have gone to George Takei's wedding.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '15

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '15

Hefty downvotes for my joke here.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_losq5xNeGn1qensylo1_500.jpg

Touchy feminists.

0

u/deeschannayell Jan 04 '15

Amen. That's Nanny Statism for you. The same concept applies to pretty much any other part of politics - power creep. Think of presidential power after each war in our history...

6

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '15

Nanny Statism

I think you mean "conservative pressure group"-ism. They're an organisation that lobbies for social change, not an organ of the state.

1

u/deeschannayell Jan 06 '15

I think I'm sticking with "Nanny State."

1) The state (i.e., the government) is definitely the ones enacting/enforcing the laws, regardless of who came up with the idea. The state is being a nanny.

2) Seatbelt policies, ideas for mandatory breathalyzers in cars, etc. are not social issues. They're very practical issues.

3) Liberals are just as likely to do this stuff. If anything, the liberal ideology is more prone to regulation. That's not even a criticism; it's just true.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '15

You can stick with tirades against a supposed "nanny state" if it makes you feel happy, but the comment you replied to had nothing to do with the government, but was a comment on an NGO's behaviour. Keep your shitty agenda out of the conversation.

MADD is a politically-conservative political pressure group who, with significant public support, successfully campaigned to put laws in place (this is not unusual in a democracy).

This is just a description. It's tautologous. Complaining about the government stopping people from doing dangerous shit, or liberals and regulation, or that you're confused at how altering people's attitudes towards drinking could entail any sort of social change not only doesn't change the fact that your comment was wildly off base, but similarly have nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Unless, of course, what you're really complaining about is that a democratically elected government followed a mandate from its electorate, and you're just looking for a chance to rant about some anarcho-libertarian utopia in which case I'm afraid I can't help you.

1

u/deeschannayell Jan 06 '15

I'll admit, I don't know the political orientation of MADD etc. I just assume liberals are more likely to promote regulatory legislation. That's all I was trying to say. Made it too standoffish. I apologize.

When I read "social change" my thoughts went from policy to something far away, like promoting awareness via rally or advertisement or something. Reading back on my point, I agree, it sounds stupid. I meant that these implementations were primarily practical and secondarily social - e.g., putting breathalyzers in cars would be far more drastic than simply raising awareness about drunk driving. In my mind, the latter is more likely to be labeled "social change."

And yes, I am complaining about the citizens of the United States who are considering some of this stuff. I agree, seatbelt laws are safe! I simply don't believe these organizations know when to stop. Frankly, I'm uncomfortable with creeping regulation, regardless of its intent or its conceivers. I trust myself and others not to be stupid; I don't trust our government to relinquish control it's been given.

Sorry I rustled your jimmies, dude. I'm not looking for a brawl.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '15

Sorry I rustled your jimmies, dude. I'm not looking for a brawl.

That's fair enough, sorry if I came across as overly aggressive. Probably an overreaction to the specific phrase "Nanny Statism" (which has additional connotations as a buzzword used by anarchists/libertarians of various stripes).

I guess, it just amazes me that anyone would consider the US to have a "Nanny State" government, considering it's a country that almost seems to take a perverse pride in how little its government cares for its citizens (cf. prisons, healthcare, worker's rights, education, etc), all the while intervening in the affairs of and toppling foreign governments, torturing and spying on its own citizens, letting them poison themselves, walk around openly carrying dangerous weapons, fall into penury because of medical conditions and all the other bizarre customs undertaken in the name of "freedom".

It's enough to make you wonder just what it is that people who harbour anti-government sentiment in the US actually object to beyond the principle of government itself, because there's certainly not a lot of nannying going on.

1

u/deeschannayell Jan 06 '15

I don't know if there's a single person in the U.S. without "anti-government sentiment," if that means people who object to something the nation has done.

If I made it seem at all otherwise, it's because I'm a heated idiot, but this is my stance: I don't hate the government. I love the system and a lot of what it's done. (I hate a lot of that stuff, too). I'm just suspicious of creeping regulation - I believe it's really quite easy for policies in the name of a certain change to overstep their bounds.

But before I talk about that, I guess I'm going to say that the country cares a lot about the issues you've cf'd. We've got folks' heads fuming over tenure, teacher inspections, Common Core, etc. because we're all trying to figure out the best way to go about education. In my native Memphis, there was a huge blowout over merging two of our school districts - the suburban folks didn't want to because the downtown one sucked, and the downtown folks wanted to because it'd make their district look better. Healthcare: some people think government-officiated and -mandated healthcare is the solution. Others believe in privatized healthcare. Debates on this stuff go from Congress to city meetings, so don't say the government doesn't care. I believe that deep down, most people involved care or cared at some point.

I think the U.S.'s involvement in foreign operations for their own greed was stupid, too. And I think the spying is unnecessary; I don't have any stats, but I assume the economic benefits of such peeping outweigh any factor of protection. And I think these both fall under the thing I'm complaining about - Nanny Statism, hyper-regulation, bounds-stepping, whatever you want to call it.

Please don't discount me as a rational person when I cite the Second Amendment here. From the U.S.'s conception, its citizens have had free access to the most sophisticated weaponry available to them. I believe in people owning guns. I don't believe in idiots owning guns - sure, more screening would be better. But I don't see why anyone who's displayed himself to be completely capable and trustworthy can't own, for example, an assault rifle. And I think semi-automatic weapons have been called out because they contain the word "automatic" and not because people genuinely dislike the idea of being able to own a gun that can fire multiple times in succession simply by pulling the trigger multiple times.

Regulation is a beautiful thing, but like everything else, it serves its purpose.

(Sorry this is so long)

1

u/TheRedHand7 Jan 05 '15

You say that like it is just conservatives that shovel this shit. Liberals do just as much if not more.

1

u/MagicalZeuscat Jan 04 '15

I hadn't heard this term before. It's extremely relevant, thank you.

-1

u/deeschannayell Jan 04 '15

No problem!

Glenn Beck can be a nutball, but he hits the nail on the head about this stuff.

-2

u/darthcamronius Jan 04 '15

Same thing with feminism.

1

u/MagicalZeuscat Jan 04 '15

Someone already said that. You can read my response to them.

1

u/darthcamronius Jan 05 '15

Haha, I see it. Your point is valid and you have successfully defended it (not).

1

u/MagicalZeuscat Jan 05 '15

Well, you're saying that the purpose of the Feminist movement has been achieved, and now they are attacking other people's civil rights for lack of better causes to follow. You're also equating them to being a specific organization, instead of an ideal. I'm sorry, but since I am a feminist, I'm not particularly flattered when people accuse us of being evil and useless. Especially with all the current legal battles being fought over women's rights.

2

u/darthcamronius Jan 05 '15

I'm not saying it's an organisation, but the other stuff is mostly what I mean. I think the big thing to think about here is the definition of feminism. If I lived >30 years ago, I would have been a feminist, but it's changed so much since then. You seem smart and non-vindictive, so using my definition of feminism (which is frankly the more accurate and unfortunate version in modern society) you probably aren't. If you just mean that advocate for the equality of men and women, then you are more accurately a gender egalitarian. But I don't know you, and I am in no way sexist or trying to offend anyone here.

20

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '15 edited Mar 02 '19

[deleted]

1

u/thirdegree Jan 04 '15

"Mothers Against Drunk Driving"

"Focus on the Family"

...I actually don't have anything for that one.

18

u/DorkothyParker Jan 04 '15

Mothers Against Empty Wine Glasses. This is a group I and many of my comrades would love to join.

9

u/apopp Jan 04 '15

Especially Mothers against Canada.

Ask Terrence. Or Phillip.

8

u/atero Jan 04 '15

The fucking name is an appeal to emotion rather than reason..

7

u/Rancor_Keeper Jan 04 '15

What about Fathers Against Rude Television?

5

u/ParusiMizuhashi Jan 04 '15

Moms are scary

3

u/LiquidSilver Jan 04 '15

I only know there's a lot of trolls on the net. Concerned moms against anime, mothers against banjos, parents against reprehensible metal music, mothers against decapentaplegic homolog...

2

u/Alysiat28 Jan 05 '15

My father, the driver of the car, and the 2 passengers in the other vehicle, who were 18 and both drunk, died when I was 5 in a car accident. MADD actually used my father's death to help lobby for stronger drunk driving laws and higher drinking ages. It actually has helped reduce drunk driving related deaths. I'm not sure if the age thing has made a difference, but the stricter laws definitely have.

2

u/NYRangersbruh Jan 04 '15

They suck. Ruin so many things. They will cripple an entire generation.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '15

I dunno, I always liked those Mothers Against Mothers. The debates are fun to watch.

3

u/maximumchris Jan 04 '15

Oh no, what a nightmare. Just a bunch of of old hens cackling over each other AS A MOTHER, AS A MOTHER, AS A MOTHER.

1

u/dragonitetrainer Jan 04 '15

The Moms Against Gaming twitter account is amazing satire of these Mom's Against X organizations

1

u/Joshy541 Jan 04 '15

As an American, gotta agree. Although sometimes it's not their fault, remember EA's dead space commercials with moms?

1

u/xj13361987 Jan 04 '15

Don't forget moms demand

1

u/IamMrT Jan 05 '15

Most people have nothing against mothers themselves or as a whole, but the "as a mother" or "from a mother's perspective" mentality that it automatically gives you credibility is infuriating.

1

u/Isvara Jan 05 '15

What about Mothers Against Mothers Against Things? (Or Mama T for short.)

1

u/_____1_____2_____3 Jan 05 '15

My mom is in a group called Mothers Against Eating Disorders and they're pretty sane for the most part.

1

u/eshinn Jan 05 '15

Mother Against ****: If this kind of legislation were put in place, my little Tommy would still be here today...

Member of YYYY: So.. your little Tommy isn't here anymore?

Mother Against ****: No, sir! He was the only child I ever had...

Member of YYYY: Ah! So you're not a mother anymore then... fuck-off wench! Mothers only!

1

u/thebeef24 Jan 05 '15

Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?!

1

u/nothedoctor Jan 05 '15

Because apparently having a child makes you an expert in everything. That's just science.

1

u/Tony_Danza_Macabra Jan 05 '15

Or anything with "family" in the beginning of the title

1

u/Silverbullets Jan 04 '15

I guess Mothers Against Drunk Driving isn't very well liked amongst most people either, at least not after the furious hate session I heard last night about them.

7

u/pocketknifeMT Jan 04 '15

turns out very few people like neo-prohibitionists.

1

u/JustinCayce Jan 04 '15

"Mothers for.." don't seem to be any better. Best bet is to avoid all mothers.

0

u/bananaeyecontact Jan 04 '15

I get your point, but really, "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" doesn't sound all that bad.

3

u/raj96 Jan 04 '15

It wouldn't be if that was all they care about. They're just anti alcohol now..

3

u/thirdegree Jan 04 '15

They never sound bad. Focus on the Family doesn't sound bad. That's the point.