[hodwic]

I think the biggest thing is more cultural than related to any specific argument -- it's America's strong cultural bent against busy-bodies.

Whether political activists, art critics, family members, next-door neighbors, school boards, building code inspectors, whatever it is. It's our core prejudice. The French are racist, the English classist, Americans hate busy-bodies.

It is core to Americans that people should think and act locally, as a rule. Basically -- mind your own business.

Applied to GDPR, this philosophy goes; "Unless you or someone you know has been concretely hurt by these businesses tracking them, why are you trying to make a law about it?"

To an American, when we hear someone trying to fix something that they have not themselves been a victim of, it sets off our busy-body radar, and we prepare to defend ourselves.

[eropple]

This characterization of Americans, followed through to a not-particularly-strenuous conclusion, indicates that "Americans"--you know, real Americans--should have been A-OK with...I dunno...Dred Scott. Or pervasive corporate surveillance, as you indicate. It's a very Whig and very rich lens upon society and, frankly, not one I expect many Americans actually hold. Were that the case, one would not see, say, so many "states' rights" types being so concerned over the bathrooms used by trans people or who so-and-so is allowed to marry (not even just gay marriage--miscegenation laws go how far back?) and the like.

Americans are nosy and paranoid; we distrust our neighbors to the point of societal breakdown on the regular and we just get inordinately mad when somebody cares about our stuff. It's not a "don't scream until you get shot," it's a "fuck you, got mine." There's a real difference here.

[hodwic]

First, you're mistaking my characterization for Americans with my own philosophy. That's in error. I am a busybody.

Second, you're mistaking your own partisan lens for what constitutes busybodyness with the American Public's lens. Americans are radically middle, rebelliously centrist, and hate changes when they come from either side of the political aisle.

And so the busybody thing cuts both ways --

- It blocks your liberal attempts at busybodyness (trans bathroom laws, trigger warnings, political correctness)

and

-It blocks our conservative attempts at busybodyness (additional censorship in media, stop and frisk, morality laws).

Americans are/were against laws to forcibly open up bathrooms to everyone and marriages to same sex couples specifically because those things appear/appeared busybodyish. Both of those things are/were changes to the law. That makes them inherently busybody.

Taking the gay marriage debate: it was only when gay folks were finally able to convince America that new laws blocking them would be more busybody than letting the laws die in court, did gay folks win the public argument.

But changes are coming that are great for conservatives, as the left is starting to lose their title of the anti-busybody;

The university social justice wing has taken on the role that the Westboro Baptist Church played in 1990's American politics, the supreme busybody, and Americans are turning against them.

This is deadly to liberal politics, since being the busybody is the worst thing you can be in American politics.

[kazagistar]

I'm not convinced. Who can marry who and substances you are allowed to make or put in your body are examples of American law poking it's nose into personal matters. Americans have a lot to say about what others should do, as long as it doesn't infringe on capital and property.

[friedman23]

> Who can marry who

Last time I checked people are free to marry whoever they please.

> substances you are allowed to make or put in your body

Marijuana is legal in the majority of states.

Sure these developments are recent but the reason they happened is because as the parent said, American's hate busy bodies.

[dragonwriter]

> Last time I checked people are free to marry whoever they please.

Untrue, though closer to true than it was five years ago. I mean, gender restrictions are gone, but consanguinity restrictions remain (most people may agree with them, but that doesn't mean they aren't restrictions beyond mutual consent of the parties.)

> Marijuana is legal in the majority of states.

While this is frequently stated, it is sloppy and inaccurate; marijuana is legal in zero states. Many states do not have additional state level criminalization of some subset of cultivation, sale, use, and possession of marijuana on top of the federal prohibition, but that doesn't make it legal in those states in th same way that states not having additional state-level criminalization of lying to a federal officer doesn't make that legal in those states.

(And, in any case, marijuana isn't the only substance prohibited to adults in the US.)

[ensignavenger]

Consanguinity isn't the only restriction on who can marry who- polyamorists still can't marry multiple partners in the US, thus they cannot marry whoever they please.

[jamescostian]

> people are free to marry whoever they please

Yes, as of 2015. What about before then? For all those years, "free to marry whoever" was not the law

> Marijuana is legal in the majority of states

Only 11 states actually have marijuana legal for recreational use. See http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/state-marij...