Sometimes I wonder if there is something in the food or the air, or if it's all due to Murdoch. You're describing the symptoms all too well. I wonder what the cause is.

There are two ways to view the world, and what we do in it. Which one we adopt largely depends on the one those around us adopt.

I make no judgement about which is "better" or "worse" - they both have positives and negatives. Inevitably, and obviously, you can probably figure out which one you fall into based on which one you react to.

In the first case, you view the world around you and yours. You see events and think "how does this affect me and people like me". If taxes are going up this means I get less money.

The alternative is through the lens of "how does this affect others." - them and theirs - yes, taxes are going up, but those in need will get better medical care, and I already have enough money myself.

It's not just about money. Basically every policy discussion revolves around "us" and "them". Immigration, inflation, exploitation, environment, defense, guns and do on. How will this affect me and mine. How will it affect them and theirs.

Inevitably every policy has an impact on a continuum, but too often the extreme is presented by media to reinforce one end of the spectrum. Thus the extremes start to matter more than the nuanced middle ground.

> There are two ways to view the world,....

More than that. Seeing that is the first step in "not being a dick"

I agree.

An additional aspect which is the reason I'm fairly left leaning is that I really dislike encounters with downtrodden people so I will gladly pay more taxes to prevent/save them from being that way.

I could not live in a place with a homelessness issue like LA.

Places like LA have high taxes and more homeless than places without high taxes. Maybe the programs in place that the high taxes pay for just incentivize homeless people to move there? Left leaning cities have a far greater number of homeless people.

I would argue there is a third. I'm open to taxes going up if the extra money is used effectively. Also what behavior are the funds incentivizing? If they are not used effectively or the incentivized behavior is not optimal then I am against them. For example cities like LA and SF give money to the homeless with virtually zero requirements so they are in effect incentivizing homeless people to move there and stay homeless. I am against this. I would be for spending money to clean homeless people up and get them jobs and provide shelter until they have acclimated back into society. The program would require actual proof of the participants trying to fix their circumstances. I am always for feeding and caring for homeless kids.

Individualism, lack of sanctions for misbehavior.

I think a lot of people (often Americans) have trouble distinguishing between illegal/legal and wrong/right. In fact, they see no right and wrong: if I can do it then I will do it, other people be damned. They’ll wave their hands right in front of your face taunting “Nyah Nyah Nyah I can legally do this and there’s nothing you can do to stop me! Ha ha ha!” People will go out of their way to be an asshole because they can and nobody can stop them.

Don’t like if I film you? Ha ha! It’s not illegal so I’m going to deliberately film you, and by the way, in other ways I’m going to also go right up to the line of what’s illegal and not cross it, because I can and because it irritates you.

This is so infuriating and irritating to read; well done, lol

The way I see it: we were very proud of our Bill of Rights, but never came up with a corresponding Bill of Responsibilities. You wouldn't expect one, of course, but the Bill of Rights gives people a thing to hold up and declare "I got mah rights!".

Pretty much any time you see somebody clamoring about their rights, and ignoring any talk about responsibility (or talking about your responsibilities but not theirs), you can tell the conversation isn't going to go well.

And if you punch me in the face I'll shoot you because I feared for my life. 'Merica!

It's baked into the founding of the country. A bunch of folks arrived in a place where people were living and decided those people were less than human and killed them or moved them away from their homes (often by signing contracts they had no intention of upholding). Then, we captured a bunch of people from somewhere far away and moved them here for free labor. After the war we fought to end that, many places passed a lot of unconstitutional laws to continue to make their lives miserable. It's no surprise to me that, never having reckoned with all of that, the general American attitude is entitled and thoughtless.

This actually pretty accurately and succinctly describes the difference between American and Canadian culture.

As a Canadian in the US I'm often asked the difference, and I've mostly held my tongue from saying "You're all pretty damn rude, and have fragile egos" but I think I might steal your description because it makes sense.

"You guys should practice DBAD"

Nonsense. As a fellow Canadian I can safely say that MANY Canadians have plenty of fragile ego problems and are plenty rude too. Let's not generalize between two whole countries. Canadian media and government policy also has an obsessive complex with "differentiating itself" from American culture, to the point of becoming tedious about it, but that's another story.