Commercials for Underoos brand underwear, once omnipresent on Saturday Morning TV vanished in the early 90s — a combination of networks' programming targeting older kids and increasing paranoia over anything that could even be implied to sexualize kids. Do a search for "Underoos" at YouTube and judge for yourself. Early commercials called them "costumes" to get away with showing them on TV.
These fruit drink adverts were made and broadcast in the UK in the 1980s. Especially weird because "Kia ora" is Maori for hello, and has nothing to do with the American South. And especially weird as most 1980s British people wouldn't even recognize the stereotypes (the piccaninny, zoot suits, crows = black people, basketball as stereotypically 'black', "dog" as a term of affection, the "mammy" are all American ideas).
1960's Jell-O Ad. About how Chinese people have trouble not calling it "Jerro". Fun? And how they can't eat anything without chopsticks.
The earliest McDonald's television commercials featured news weatherman Willard Scott as a far different version of Ronald McDonald. The commercials featured Scott (wearing a burger tray on his head, and sporting poorly-applied clown makeup and a goofy grin) explaining that he "likes to do what all little boys and girls like" and accosts a young boy by bribing him with cheeseburgers - the kid even says that he's "not supposed to talk to strangers", and Ronald replies with, "Well, your mother's right as always, but I'm Ronald McDonald!" Even though people wouldn't have batted an eyelid back then, the commercials were swiftly swept under the rug after the company relaunched the mascot in the late 70's, for obvious reasons.
CSA: The Confederate States of America includes what they lead you to believe are commercials for fictitious products, all including outlandishly outdated black stereotypes and caricatures as mascots. Then as the credits roll it's revealed almost all of these products were real or based on a real product. The companies were forced to adapt with changing times once their advertising content (specifically dark face portrayals and certain word choices) grew to be considered racist.
There are advertising materials that are one of the larger and more persistent problems for online crafts bazaar Etsy, as while they are valuable pieces of Americana collected for that aspect as well as the "never forget" point, they're also valued by racists for, well, rather obvious reasons. There's also the issue that people actually manufacture copies for the latter market, which is a business Etsy wants no part of, also for rather obvious reasons. Enforcing their policy of "yes to originals, no to copies" is something that they take seriously.
Some late 50s/early 60s Cheerios ads featuring the Cheerios Kid feature a Dastardly Whiplash-like villain who would kidnap his girlfriend and the kid would have to save her. These days, it seems pretty disturbing after recent events.
The tonic Moxie (which was popular around the turn of the century but lost nearly all market share south of Massachusetts to Coca Cola when its ad director died) has a good bit now that tonics and other sugary beverages are considered to be contributors to obesity and herbal remedies of unknown content are no longer considered trustworthy. It's very odd to see it being treated as a revitalizing health beverage for the whole family in adventure magazines (hence the name's modern meaning).
In the German-made board game Puerto Rico, the little brown cubes were originally "slaves". Later editions changed that to "colonists".
The Prayer Warriors have a set of values (it's acceptable to kill people who don't share your religion, who are homosexuals, or who are rape victims that didn't cry out loudly enough) that is quite different from many people, including their fellow Christians, to say the least. This trope is actually acknowledged in-story when Grover sees Benry dealing drugs to Rika and Books, and acknowledges that dealing drugs is (according to him), legal in Soviet Russia, but as it is illegal under US law, he has to kill Benry to enforce US law.
Justice League of Equestria: In Princess of Themyscira, Amazons actually wear clothes, unlike most ponies, and Diana is as disturbed at the possibility of Soarin' seeing her naked as most people in the real world would be. She also brings up this trope when taking her vow to uphold the laws of mortals when in their realm, bringing up how she might run into laws and customs that she feels are unjust.
In Boys Und Sensha-do, this trope comes into play to an extent. Akio is more Americanized than the mainly Japanese cast, and has a tendency to speak his mind more easily. As such, when Miho's mother visits her in the hospital to disown her (something that he points out is almost unheard of in America, particularly not in his family), he lays into her with a "The Reason You Suck" Speech.
Pretty much the whole point of the deconstruction of the Human-in-Equestria genre called "The Man With Two Names." This is because the author realizes that an omnivore isn't going to be able to coexist with a skittish group of herbivores at all no matter how well-intentioned he is.
Mythology and Religion
Almost all religions come with a prepackaged moral code. Most of them contradicts each other in some sense, though if one considers only relation between believers, most of them are surprisingly similar. The most known points of conflict are polygamy/polyamory, sexual perversions and sex outside marriage.
While Hades was never unfaithful to Persephone, the fact that he first kidnapped, and later blackmailed her into spending time with him, probably doesn't sit very well with modern audiences.
A possible intended interpretation of the abduction of Persephone also lends itself to this trope: some believe that the abduction was actually an elopement, and that Demeter was meant to be seen as clingy and overprotective of her daughter. While modern audiences would agree that a woman trying to keep her adult daughter from marrying is overprotective, the fact that Demeter is certain her daughter had been kidnapped makes her wild behavior a bit more sympathetic.
In the case of Ares and Mars, the Romans did not actually just adopt the Greek religion wholesale and change the names of the gods. Instead they engaged in a kind of syncretism wherein they matched the gods worshiped by the Greeks with their own Etruscan-Latin deities. To the Greeks, Ares was the god of brutal warfare. The Roman Mars was a god of agriculture as well as warfare, reflecting the fact that during the early Roman Republic most soldiers were also farmers. It is also worth noting that there was Values Dissonance regarding Ares among the Greeks. For example, the militaristic Spartans held Ares in higher esteem than other city-states, especially Athens.
In addition, the Roman conception of warfare, and hence Mars, was a lot closer to the ideals of warfare in defense of your people and nation than the Greek position was. So less Draco in Leather Pants than Heel-Face Turn. The Greeks perceived Ares as the enemy of civilization, whereas the Romans saw Mars as the patron of its expansion.
There's an awful lot of incest going on in the family tree of the Greek gods. Uranus may or may not be Gaia's son, or possibly her brother, but whatever their relation, they had kids. A couple of those kids got married and had six children: Zeus, Poseidon, Hades, Hera, Demeter, and Hestia. Zeus and Hera got married and popped out a few kids of their own, including Ares, Eris, and sometimes Hephaestus. Meanwhile, Zeus also got Demeter pregnant, resulting in Persephone. The same Persephone that Hades married. Yeah.
Occurs in The Sopranos if the game is set with "Adult Mode" turned off. Apparently, cursing and profanity is bad, but committing arson, burying bodies in the Meadowlands, and beating up civilians in shakedowns is okay for all ages.
Many bicycle safety P.S.A.s released prior the 1975 would fall under this because a helmet wasn't included in the safety rules. There a difference from a bike PSA from the 1958, like Bicycle Clown and this one from American Automobile Association called Bike Safe, Bike Smart from 2009. Both have the same road rules but the motor club one would be more acceptable today.
Boys Beware, a PSA from 1961 would be frowned upon today and would be deemed homophobic due to the subject matter. In addition, a tacit endorsement of hitchhiking that would be horribly irresponsible by today's standards.
Fire Safety videos done before 1965 have also come under... well... fire for not including smoke detectors, which didn't become common in the home until the said date. The Discovery Network even includes wildfires as part of today's fire safety videos.
In The Disney Short, I'm No Fool, had two on fire safety, 1955 and a remake in 1986, the 1986 version included the following: exit drills, smoke detectors, stop-drop-and-roll, and fire extinguishers. Today, such method in the 1986 version is now the norm. There are now web videos, mostly from Howcast, that have fire safety videos such as the following: Practice and putting out grease fire safety.
In the PSA Accidents Don't Just Happen, the narrator takes about how accidents are likely to happen and he points out that he should have considered seat belts for his car. This made before 1968 where the US Federal Government begun making them mandatory for automobiles made after that date to have them with the exception of buses. In 1984, New York went one step further and made it mandatory for occupants or they face a fine.
The Duck and Cover from 1951 was to inform people on what to do in case of nuclear strike. While this is controversial between its not clear if such tactic worked in a nuclear strike, like this video from Howcast, which updated it in case of a terrorist one. In fact, many would regard Duck and Cover as a scare tactic due to the early in the Cold War when it was released. However, it has served a purpose when it comes to earthquakes where one must hide underneath an object like a strong-enough table to withstands falling debris. It also was the basics on tornado-drills since seeking cover is key.
No one today would name a sports team something like the "San Antonio Wetbacks", "Chicago Polacks", or "New York Darkies", yet we have no trouble with the equally racist "Washington Redskins". This recently became the focus of some media attention when the team had an argument with the US Patent and Trademark Office, who have a standing policy that ethnic slurs or other offensive language may not be protected by a trademark.
Incidentally, occasional opinion polls have found very little enthusiasm for changing the name, even among local Native Americans, probably due to the Grandfather Clause.
Invoked by the Fighting Whites of the University of Northern Colorado. Originally intended to show how racist the above sort of names were, it ended up being popular enough, selling t-shirts, to allow the creation of a scholarship fund for Native Americans.
A controversial example occurred when the NCAA went after teams with Native American based names under Myles Brand's leadership. The issue was that they not only went after the stereotypical named teams (which there were still a few of, though most had already been renamed), but also teams named for specific tribes, such as the Florida State Seminoles and University of Utah Utes. The controversy came from the fact that these teams were using the names of tribes native to the region that the schools were in, and were used with the knowledge and consent of the tribes. Though at least in the case of the Seminoles, there are two tribal councils, and one of them (the Seminoles of Oklahoma) is absolutely opposed to the name. Interestingly enough, the tribe that's in favor (Florida) is the one that's getting money from the school.
In an amusing example of values evolving over time, when Michael Sam was drafted to the St. Louis Rams in 2014, a huge fuss was made over the openly gay athlete kissing his boyfriend on national TV. However, nobody remotely cared about the couple being interracial.
At least three Canadian ice hockey teams have used a swastika as their emblem.
Among criminal-oriented societies, preying upon other criminals can be considered especially low. Other criminal communities find it disgusting to prey upon anyone who is innocent of wrongdoing. These two mindsets do not get along well.
Police are sometimes no better. While many view their role to protect and serve as a higher calling, abuse of power is almost always a serious concern. Despite this, protecting fellow police is often the default mindset, even if the police in question are Not So Different from the criminals they face.
This can also occur not merely between two people in conflict, but the bystanders as well. Example: you're a bystander, and you see a customer walk up to a cashier and start insulting the cashier for some reason (perhaps the cashier is Jewish and the customer is an anti-Semite, or the cashier is "dressed funny", or the cashier happens to look like someone the customer hates, etc.). The cashier responds by calling the customer out on it and asking him to apologize. The customer refuses, arguing that since he's the customer, the cashier's duty is to serve him anyway, despite the insult. The cashier then says he shouldn't have to serve the customer until the customer apologizes. An argument ensues. Then they turn to you, the ordinary bystander, and ask you which of them is right. You could decide either:
A) the cashier is right. Concepts such as morality, maturity, ethics, propriety, etc. refer to how you treat people. Since the customer began the conflict by treating the cashier badly, the customer is in the wrong and should apologize. Furthermore, if the customer doesn't face any consequences for how he treated the cashier, that would set a "bad precedent" making it acceptable for others to behave like jerks and get away with it.
B) the customer is right. Concepts such as morality, maturity, ethics, propriety, etc. refer to whether or not you are willing to turn things into a conflict, and thus make trouble for the rest of the community. So even though the customer was treating the cashier badly, it didn't turn into "an argument" until the cashier responded to the bad treatment, and thus violated his duty to serve the customer. The cashier should have just sat back and took it, since he "brought trouble to the community" by turning one-sided bad treatment into "a conflict which requires two people." Therefore, the cashier is wrong and should apologize.
No matter who "you the mere bystander" side with, the losing customer would essentially perceive you as having values dissonance, since it is clearly obvious that the asshole was the customer (for the initial insulting attitude) or clearly obvious that the asshole was the cashier (for responding back, and thus making it a "conflict").
The BDSM subculture operates on a lot of rules that "vanilla" people not involved would find quite odd if not unfathomable, such as that inflicting pain on someone can be a sign of your love for them.
Some variations get even more extreme. A 24/7 Dominant/submissive relationship is one where the dominant has a level of control over a submissive to the point where they become little more than a slave. The submissive's only moral code is to please the dominant, and by the subculture's expectations anything the dominant wishes to use the submissive fornote with some usually agreed upon beforehand exceptions such as illegal activity, anything involving children or animals, or anything that could do permanent damage to the body is morally acceptable and OK. The dominant can tie and torture the submissive for sheer amusement, force them to do all household chores and errands while lazily relaxing and confiscate all the submissive's earnings in their job and spend it on personal items for themselves while allowing the submissive only basic sustenance and living expenses. And most submissives would actually agree with this form of morality and argue that their dominant has a right to treat them more as a tool for pleasure and amusement than a person...and in fact most love this and wouldn't have it any other way.
This argument is occasionally used to justify (although not necessarily defend) questionable business practices—why should a corporation operate based on ethics similar to interpersonal relationships when it only exists to make money as efficiently as possible?
The codes of conduct held by various criminal organizations—whether "old-school" organized crime or modern street gangs—and esoteric groups can often be incomprehensible to "outsiders".
This can occur quite frequently between atheists and theists, given that the two groups have different precepts that they consider to be axiomatic (i.e. evident, obvious, requiring no proof). In essence, all philosophical debate narrows down to "If you agree to A, you also have to agree to B, because...". Theists and atheists have no A to agree on.
A major example is the nature of what "right and wrong" means. In general (though there are exceptions to every rule), theists believe that right and wrong revolve around whether or not you obey the commands of God, Zeus, the nature spirits, etc. For example, if God makes it clear in the Bible that you're not supposed to "lie with mankind as with womankind", then a theist would argue that whether or not there's any rational reason for this command from a human perspective, you're still supposed to obey God's will because ultimately, God's will always works out for the best. However, atheists (though there are exceptions to every rule) believe that right and wrong revolve around the possible consequences, including the infliction of pain, that could happen as a result of some specific action you choose to take, regardless of whether or not a Godly commandment is violated. So an atheist, rather than taking exception to "lying with mankind", would take exception to the very punishment afforded those who do, because from the atheist's perspective, that punishment is essentially inflicting negative consequences on an innocent person, God's will or not. But since the theist believes that God is the source of morality, the theist could not understand why the atheist would consider the punishment immoral, and feel that the atheist is deliberately being stubborn and defiant. The atheist could not understand why the theist could inflict such a punishment without guilt, and would feel that the theist is deliberately being cruel.
Even though you might say current Western society is "descended" from them, the ancient Romans (among other past societies) sometimes might as well be aliens to the modern West, between the casual practice of infanticide, fights to the death being a celebrated form of entertainment, and suicide being a much more acceptable reaction to failure. It's part of why works like I, Claudius and Rome are so fascinating. Even Saint Augustine, writing "just" in the fifth century, couldn't understand why the legend of Lucretia made the suicide of a rape victim something heroic.
There's also the fact that the Romans were cultural bigots, not racial or religious bigots. This is often gets lost in modern adaptations where Romans dismissing or torturing "barbarians" is treated as being racially or religiously motivated. In truth, you were considered a barbarian if you weren't Roman in culture, and many different ethnicities—even former enemies—who accepted Roman culture were mostly integrated into Roman society without much fuss or bother. They also had no problem with religion as long as you paid lip service to the imperial cult (which was done to declare your "Roman-ness"), and what religion they practiced was more for the form and philosophy than any real religious zeal. Their persecution of Christians came not from religious fanaticism but politics since the Christians' refusal to pay even lip service to the imperial cult was seen as heinous treason.
An example of the Romans' lack of racial prejudice: Septimius Severus was a successful and widely admired emperor who was African on his mother's side and grew up near the ruins of Rome's great enemy Carthage. Nobody cared; he had had a proper Roman education and Marcus Aurelius had made him a senator, so he was perfectly acceptable. Contrast that with Maximinus who was 100% white and grew up in Europe, but who was neither a senator nor an educated man, and in consequence was despised by the ruling class and eventually overthrown.
Middle Ages Europe, despite being the direct ancestor to modern western society, had very different standards of morality.
Until the end of Useful Notes/WWI the British army still regularly used corporal punishments that would be considered barbaric to modern Westerners. Capital punishment for cowardice was common and during the 18th and 19th centuries a naval captain could be put to death if they didn't attack enemy shipping at any and every opportunity - unless there was an extremely good reason for doing so.
Far from being proud of their historic buildings, Saudi Arabia has demolished many Islamic heritage sites on the grounds that they might encourage idolatry, including one of Muhammad's own houses, the house of one of his wives and the graves of his parents.
This is an issue within one culture: Muslims not belonging to the Wahhabi/Salafi strain that is official in Saudi Arabia regard the sites as harmless and the defilement of the graves as being a higher crime. In particular, Sufis—who are all about shrines and tombs and so on—get really confused about why all this stuff is wrong in the Wahhabi view.
The Saudi clerics give the impression that they would like to destroy Muhammad's tomb, too, but that particular shrine is very popular and is incorporated into the Great Mosque of Medina, to boot, so they satisfied themselves with stripping it of all decoration.
The Afghan Taliban destroyed an age-old Buddhist shrine and World Heritage Site in Afghanistan for the same reasons. Seen by the wider world as wanton vandalism, this was perfectly explicable within Wahhabi Islamic thinking as a holy act and righteous in the eyes of God.
Destruction of centuries-old tombs and monuments occurred when Islamists briefly took control of Timbuktu in Mali before they were driven back by French-backed government forces. This is more in line with differences within Islam - among the sites targeted were the tombs of Sufi saints.
Christians used to do the same thing to the pagan monuments of Europe's past. In the year 426, for example, Byzantine emperor Theodosius II ordered the Temple of Zeus, one of the The Seven Wonders of the World, destroyed for this reason. In case you think atheists are immune, the Soviets had no qualms about destroying historic Russian churches as well as anything else which was seen to symbolize the czarist era. And another communist regime, Maoist China, took this even further with the Cultural Revolution.
In fact, until much later, Western culture didn't see value in old buildings simply for being old either. While the modern view of an ancient, abandoned stone structure is usually something like "What a magnificent example of ancient culture," for most of history the reaction would have been "What a handy source of already-quarried stone." (Ever wondered why the sides of the Pyramids of Giza aren't smooth? The stones were used to build Cairo, which is just across the river, in the Middle Ages.)
A relatively minor example from World War I - to German commanding officers at the time (many of whom were aristocratic in stock), the shotgun was a weapon reserved for hunting animals. On the other hand, the Americans had been using it for killing humans for decades - it's relatively cheap and easier to use compared to rifles, yet still packs a whallop (carriages in the Old West would often have a driver and a second man next to him armed with a shotgun for protection, hence the term "calling shotgun"). When the US entered the war and American soliders began using shotguns in assaulting trenches (shotguns turned out to be very useful in doing that), German officers were reportedly so aghast at the notion they threatened any American soldier captured using shotguns with execution for war crimes. Officially, Germany did file a diplomatic protest with the US over their use, which was rejected.
Griefers and Trolls. (Mentioned a little in Video Games.) Some people might actually love pranking each other or pulling others... as long as it's to cause laughter. A lot of people see a Griefer or a Troll as a simple mindless organism devoted to nothing but trying to make others feel as miserable for one moment as they do all the time... but are promptly surprised to see a known Troll cuss out a fellow Troll for inflicting actual damage of some kind. Some Trolls might delight in causing internet chaos... but if somebody's actually been hurt, won't find it very funny any longer.
Image boards have been seen as a couple of things... among them a Wretched Hive, a meeting ground for the most sick people on earth, or a refuge for stupidity. They may roll on the floor laughing at whatever Video Game Cruelty Potential they can come up with... yet at the same time there have been people posting images of them actually inflicting harm to someone or an animal and being promptly scolded Dude, Not Funny! or even having their IP tracked and the local police called.
On the other hand, there are Trolls who ascribe to a variety of Social Darwinism, who see themselves and their behavior as a positive force for "improving" the culture of the Internet. From their perspective, Trolling you is doing you a favor: either you toughen up or you leave. Either way, the overall Online Culture is improved, because there are fewer whiny babies hanging around. Which doesn't quite work on several levels...
According to George Lakoff, this is the main division in U.S. politics. In his view, conservatives are "strict parents" who want people to be strong, disciplined and self-reliant, but most of all, white and Christian. Liberals are "nurturing parents" who want people to be taken care of. A more extreme example is the difference between conservatives and liberals on one hand and libertarians on the other, since libertarians object to the idea that government should assume a parental role at all.
The concept of patriotism is a good example of this. Many Americans still view patriotism as a positive trait, while many citizens from other countries would view it as borderline ethnocentrism. In fact, what some Americans would consider to be an insufficiently acceptable level of patriotism is still higher than what many citizens of other countries would consider to exceed the acceptable level of patriotism. On the other hand, how patriotism is perceived can also be in the eyes of the beholder, given its different manifestations and interpretations in other countries. What would be considered a genuine love for country in one place could be considered either chauvinistic nationalism or social indifference in another, and vice versa.
Sweden is a good example of a country where people have become increasingly suspicious of American-style patriotism, to the point where nationalism often is seen as the same thing as Neo-Nazism. It doesn't help that while Swedes still love their country, their national flag is also used by Neo-Nazis.
The Germans post-World War II are perhaps a clearer example of a people with a rather awkward relationship with patriotism and nationalism for fairlyobviousreasons such that at least for a time, nationalist sentiment tended to be associated with Neo-Nazis and fascism in general.
Ruth Benedict's The Chrysanthemum and the Sword is an excellent account of just how incomprehensible the Americans and the Japanese were to each other during WWII: Americans thought the Japanese must be crazy for committing mass suicide attacks and finding death preferable to surrender, while the Japanese thought Americans must be crazy for being willing to dishonor themselves by surrendering. The best example is seppuku, the old Japanese practice of ritual suicide in order to regain one's honor. In western thought suicide is considered the ultimate act of cowardice (or in religious cases, a sin).
Japan, and to a lesser extent the rest of the world, could not comprehend why America would frequently engage in expensive and often casualty-filled rescue missions. The Japanese didn't even know what to make of this practice, because it showed a great deal of courage and honor on the part of the rescuers, but they still didn't understand why they were risking and sacrificing their lives for cowards who couldn't be bothered to die honorably. Even America's allies didn't get the rationale behind endangering and outright sacrificing the lives of the many for the lives of the few. Really the United States as a whole was just uncomfortable with the idea of condemning anyone to die.
Sometimes seen in schools in China where a Western teaches. If he catches them sharing answers on a test, say, his first thought is that they should be punished for being cheaters, while the students might just consider it collaboration on a task.
Consider two sayings, one from the United States, and the other from Japan.
"The squeaky wheel gets the grease" - American saying
"The nail that stands up gets hammered down." -Japanese saying
Both have a similar prompt, an individual that stands out from the rest. Where in the US, individualism is held in high esteem, and may warrant benefits, Japanese have more respect on the collective, and standing out will only bring trouble to the individual.
Within contemporary normative ethics are three major types of ethical theory: Consequentialism (the morality of an action is dictated by its consequences), Deontological ethics (the morality of an action is based on duty) and virtue ethics (morality is based on virtues). The morality of a given decision will vary widely between them.
Literature from all sorts of ancient cultures falls into this trope. Some of the stuff we take for granted in classical literature can be pretty bizarre for those unfamiliar with ancient Bronze Age customs. Far from being considered barbaric, it was probably just a description of "the status quo" back then. Advocates of more recognizably modern value systems were considered kooks.
The Aztecs had a thing for human sacrifice. It was originally considered an honor to be sacrificed, so rival cities would host ball games; the captain of the winning team would be sacrificed. Changing mores (and the realization that their conquered neighbors didn't quite feel the same way) partially led to the downfall of the Aztec empire, since the invading Spanish were identified with Quetzalcoatl—a god that was opposed to human sacrifice.
The whole sacrificing the winner thing makes perfect sense when you think about it: why wouldn't you give the gods the very best person as a sacrifice? For the same reason, some cultures would sacrifice their king in times of crisis to please the gods.
The Aztecs had a rich history of Imperialism and enslaving people so that they could be used as unwilling human sacrifices, leading to their neighbors regarding them as an unholy mixture of The Empire and Religion of Evil.
And they also ate the flesh of the people, which they had sacrificed, as a part of a holy ritual!
The Mayans, on the other hand, were more big on self-sacrifice. They weren't averse to a little human sacrifice, but they were mainly concerned with body purification through bloodletting. Sexual stuff was considered relatively unclean, so the Mayans purified themselves by drawing barbed threads through their tongues and penises.
James Bowman in Honor: A History traces the honor codes of various times and civilizations and points out that they have universal similarities and striking differences. He also believes that the old style honor code is becoming Values Dissonance to a number of modern people.
An example he gives was of a Obviously Not Intrepid Reporter (whom he mercifully refuses to name) he heard of in Iraq who persuaded a female soldier to ride in his car to "use their chauvinism against them" so that no insurgents would shoot at him. The author points out that the honor code of Middle Eastern terrorists is not quite that of a Quintessential British Gentleman, the differences are as complex as the similarities, and in general they would have no problems shooting at a female soldier.
Watergate is the perfect example: The Soviets couldn't believe Nixon, a powerful and effective national leader, was really brought down by the kind of things that were a matter of course in the USSR. The Russians thought it was some sort of coup, possibly because of Nixon's policy of détente with the USSR.
The election of Pope John Paul II was another example. The Sovs considered this proof that the West had the College of Cardinals in their pocket.
It's often been said that the United States represented freedom at the expense of equality while the Soviet Union represented equality at the expense of freedom. This can be seen in the propaganda of both sides, as American propaganda focused on portraying the U.S.S.R. as insufficiently free while Soviet propaganda focused on portraying the U.S. as insufficiently equal. For example, the Americans might attack the Soviets for not having things like freedom of speech, while the Soviets would consider the American level of unemployment to be a more important issue (the Soviets didn't believe Americans truly had freedom of speech in the first place, and thought raising that issue was just some weird kind of subterfuge).
The above is particularly evident in a common Russian joke/political satire of the 50's and 60's, where an American rakes a Russian over the coals about their economic freedom, usually ending with a pointed comment such as "How long does it take 'your' people to save the money to afford a car?" The Russian then responds "Well, yes, but you lynch negroes!" The Other Wiki has a page on this subject.
Much has been made by historians of the deals made at the end of Useful Notes/WWII between the two sides. For example, Stalin made a promise that he would allow free elections in Eastern Europe. Throughout the Cold War this was used by the West as propaganda and supposed proof of the Soviets' untrustworthiness. However, since the fall of the Soviet Union several historians have suggested that Stalin simply did not fully understand what the British and Americans meant by 'free elections'.
Dr. Ruby Payne's book A Framework for Understanding Poverty discusses this with lower classes compared with middle and upper classes. Because of the day-by-day nature of poorer lifestyles, along with many other factors, many actions and behaviors done by lower classes, which are usually looked at with confused disgust by middle and upper class citizens, are simply seen as survival skills to lower classes. One prime example is a poorer family was given a fridge by (presumably) middle class citizens, however, the family ended up selling the fridge to pay for a camping trip due to stress (which the kids were pulled out of school for a week unexcused). While middle/upper class citizens would see this decision as shortsighted, to people that live day by day, with no promise for tomorrow, such a decision is completely justified and rational. In general, actions are done on what works best now, opposed to the future (a practice done by the middle/upper class).
Another example is a relation to authority figures. To middle and upper class citizens, authority figures are considered to be a good thing ultimately, and interactions with them tend to be positive. Problems with authority tend to be more of the exception than the norm. However, for lower classes, problems with authority tend to be the norm, and thus, lower classes tend to look upon authority with distrust, which is why members of the lower classes, tend to be more openly disrespectful to authority figures at their expense, due to a vastly different world view and upbringing. This can be seen for example the interactions of police with middle and upper class citizens in comparison to lower class citizens. The latter may tend to work with them and such, since problems with them are rare, whereas lower classes, where negative interactions with authority tend to be far more common, will most likely not work with them, because of an ingrained distrust from experience.
Social interactions are also viewed differently. Middle and upper classes will use them as tools, interacting with people they may not like personally, but will work with them to achieve a goal. While this happens in lower classes, social cohesion is held in a higher regard; meaning that a person from this class may refuse to work, or work poorly with someone they don't like, even at their own expense (i.e, refuse to do homework at all or well because they don't like the teacher, even though good grades could help them, quit a job or have poor performance because of issues with a boss or co-workers, despite the fact they need to make ends meet)
Take two people completely opposed on some issue- say an avid hunter and a member of an animal rights group. Chances are, they will find themselves unable to comprehend the other's point of view. The core element of many animal rights arguments is that animals have the same rights as people (or should), thus, shooting them is morally equivalent (or at least similar) to murder. Meanwhile, the core elements of the hunter's viewpoint is that this argument is patently false, and that humans who hunt are as much a part of the natural environment as any other apex predator. These two views simply cannot be resolved in any meaningful way, and both sides believe they are "good" while the other side is "evil" (or, at least, willfully ignorant), making the essential conflict a value dissonance issue.
Similar to hunting is the abortion debate. One of the reasons why it is such a dividing issue is that both sides have two view points that are ultimately incompatible. Pro-life believe that it is murder, and the woman's right to her own body does not supersede the right of the unborn. Pro-choice do not recognize the unborn as a human being, or at least, having the same rights as a born human being, and that a woman has a right to the functions of her body. Because of the inability for some members of both camps to understand the other side, strawmen created by either side project the way they see the issue. This leads to the caricatures of pro-choicers as murderers, and on the other side, pro-lifers as old men who believe women should be legal property again, even though in reality, most pro-choicers would probably abhor murder, and most pro-lifers don't believe in making women second-class citizens. The fact that a significant number in the US, perhaps even a majority, are unconvinced by either argument, yet side with one or the other group anyway out of political loyalties, only serves to confuse the matter, as does the very marginalized minority view that the decision should be in the hands of the medical establishment rather than the individuals involved, and the even more marginalized view that abortions should be encouraged to limit population growth and/or prevent childhood poverty.
Similar to the above two, Assisted Suicide. Those against it believe that it is essentially murder, combined with the general view of suicide as being cowardly as it is. Those for it see it as, well, a mercy a it ends a person's suffering and pain, as well as any suffering its causing their loved ones who then have the freedom to move on. Add in religion, and you have one side who view it as inherently anti-Christian to end a person's life along with the fact suicide is a sin, and others who think its anti-Christian to deny a suffering person a chance at the afterlife.
Times where children were working in factories, fighting in wars, or otherwise doing things that would seem insane to modern audiences. But it's a truism that, in cultures with a significantly high enough mortality rate, the "we can always make more" mentality tends to be much more common.
There was a mother, Lenore Skenazy, who let her son take the subway home. Alone, albeit with a transit pass, a map of the transit system and more than $20 in case of an emergency (she lived in New York). Naturally, the reaction was either "NO! YOU CAN'T DO THAT!" or "Good for you!" Taking the train alone might be a rite of passage for a kid in New York, Chicago, or London, whereas in Hong Kong or Tokyo, it's just another day. Her article. She knew her kid was not in any danger whatsoever, and taking the subway by himself was something he really, really wanted to try.
Children's television. What's considered 'acceptable' varies on different sides of the Pond.
Japanese children shows like Okasaan to Issho could jar American audiences with its constant depiction of the family unit always being a stay-at-home mother and a dad who works in a suit and tie with briefcase, straight out of the 1950s. While the working mom is more of a thing in Japan (although a stay-at-home dad is still considered rare), the culture still values and strives towards this family dynamic, not to mention the lack of single parents, etc.
Also a lot of anime shows aimed at kids or teenagers in Japan sometimes have darker themes and/or content that's generally more "adult" then whats allowed in the West, meaning they tend to get higher ratings when they're brought over here, or worse, they get heavily bowdlerized to the point of being nearly unrecognizable.
The newer lines, specifically Mars Mission, Atlantis, and LEGO Power Miners show the main human characters barging into native habitats, attacking and persecuting the native creatures (most of which seem to be trying to defend their territory) and plundering the area for resources. It's like Avatar, except here we're supposed to be rooting for the humans. And let's not even get into LEGO Space Police... Fortunately, it's LEGO, so you can make whomever you want win.
However, the original "LEGO Life On Mars" storyline had Martians who worked with the humans, and the humans departing at the end.
It's notable that Mars Mission later reveals the Aliens are also invading Mars, they simply got there slightly ahead of the Humans, they're also here for the same crystals.
The Carousel of Progress at Disney Theme Parks. Since a lot of its script was written in The Sixties, there's a lot of talk about how new technology helps ease the women's burden of housework. It never occurs to the husband that the burden could be eased more if they'd step in.
Given that automation, especially the laundry machine and microwave oven, has had a major effect in reducing household chores, this is actually more a case of Aluminum Christmas Trees. Before 1920, running even a small house was a full time job, and lower middle class people often had a full time domestic or gardener to run the house. Given that workers were striking for 60 hour work weeks and paid sick leave at the time, daddy-helping-around-the-house was easier said than done.
Even in the sixties, such things were regarded as increasingly antiquated. The original World's Fair/Disneyland version of the script featured instances in the 1900s and 1920s scenes in which the father character would comment on these new advances, with the mother character rather miserably replying "Yes, dear..." while doing housework; the mother ended up getting her revenge on the father in the final 1960s scene by refusing to let him get a word in edgewise. The 1970s Disney World version of the script went even further in a father/daughter scene (with the father commenting that it was "a man's world out there", and the daughter countering that it wouldn't always be), while the current 1990s Disney World version of the script plays the elements more lightheartedly (the 1900s scene has a bit where the father comments that the new technology gives the mother more time to do other things, with the mother sarcastically replying that those "other things" are usually more housework).
In a slightly different meaning of the word "Values", the Three Wise Men's gifts cause a lot of confusion with modern people who know what "gold" is since it's still a valuable, sought-after commodity, but have no idea that "Frankincense and Myrrh", in addition to being religiously symbolic, were pretty valuable commodities in those days. This gets played for laughs a lot and linked with the commonplace modern situation of one birthday guest showing up others by bringing a more expensive gift.
Religious reformation is essentially taking the Retcon pen to those parts of The Bible that simply won't fly now. You know, the slavery, genocide, and other fun stuff.
The Book of Job is a particularly egregious example. Job's reaction to his plight, even when learning the truth, makes him look like an Extreme Doormat to the shenanigans of those two. Modern audiences are also fairly appalled by Job being rewarded after his family is slaughtered by getting new wives and more children. That does not make having your entire family wiped out retroactively okay!
The Book of Judges: Taken without a religious context, God reads like a totalitarian dictator for the entire book.
The Book of Joshua: Taken without a religious context, God appears a genocidal lunatic.
Genesis 11 (1-9): Taken without a religious context, it almost seems like God is the instigator for a significant amount of all human prejudice to come.
In a rare example of this trope operating the other way round, when the Hancock's Half Hour episode 'Sunday Afternoon at Home' broadcast, there were letters of complaint because it featured the cast sitting round at home bored....and there was no mention of them going to church. The BBC explained that the episode was called Sunday Afternoon and the cast had been to church in the morning.
A major problem on public transport in Japan is "frotteurism", male passengers feeling up female passengers in the crush (and occasionally the other way around). It's gotten so bad that most trains now have a designated "Women-only" car to combat the problem. One of the reasons it's so widespread is that the victims tend to simply stand there silently and leave as soon as possible. A Western woman in the situation would scream bloody murder and take a swing at the guy.
British broadcasts of hit Scandinavian series such as Borgen or Wallander were often prefaced with warnings about the programme containing strong language and sexual content. What complicated things here was that the shows were in the original Swedish or Danish and subtitled into English. Scandinavians have a different attitude to profanity than the British. Words like "fuck" and "shit" still count as swear words, but do not carry the same charge that they do in English: they might be on a par with "bloody" or "bugger". These were pretty faithfully translated into their English equivalents in the subtitles, which must have presented a dilemma to the subtitlers: as these words are lower down the scale of swearing seriousness in Scandinavia, they might have been better represented in the subtitles with "sod!", "bloody!" or "bugger". However, a holdover from the Calvinist religious tradition in Scandinavia is that the real shockers are phrases considered mild in English: "Go to Hell!" or "Devil take you!" and variations on a theme are the local equivalent of "Fuck you!" or "Fuck off!" These too were translated in the subtitles, losing some of their severity in the subtitling... As for the warning about sexual content, it can be imagined that many Brits would think "This is Danish? And it's got sex in it? I'm watching!". (The British perception of Scandinavia is a land of sexual licence, perhaps derived from a time when Danish and Swedish were synonymous with hard-core porn). As Scandinavia has moved on from those days, if they ever existed, those viewers were in for a monumental let-down: such sex scenes as there were in Borgen were extremely mild, by British TV standards.
The Dutch-Belgian Sinterklaasfeest has been controversial since the 1970s, because Sinterklaas has a servant named "Zwarte Piet" ("Black Pete"),who is either a black slave or a white guy in blackface. Nobody in the Netherlands and Belgium sees this folkloric character as being racist, especially since it's often told that he's black because of the chimney dirt, but tourists are often horrified when they see Dutchmen and Belgians celebrating blackface servants. As recently as 2013, the United Nations, under the authority of the High Commissioner for Human Rights were to investigate whether Zwarte Piet is a racist stereotype. The Dutch government responded by stating that the Sinterklaas celebration is a tradition for children in the Netherlands.
Though there are lots of immigrants from North Africa nowadays in the BENELUX who have similar issues with this character. This eventually started a debate
The Dutch fashion magazine Jackie came under fire after an article jokingly referred to Rihanna as a "niggabitch", apparently unaware of the concept behind N-Word Privileges. The ensuing firestorm of controversy led to editor in chief Eva Hoeke resigning in disgrace.
During the early-to-mid 2000s, it was not unheard of for young adults (teens to mid-thirties, normally) to refer to something stupid as "gay", or to use the word "fag" for someone they disliked, found annoying, or as a name to tease their friends with. This sort of thing is generally frowned upon now, with the current Gay Rights Movement. However, 'gay' is still used amongst teens and tweens in Western parts of the world. Pretty frequently too.
Cat experts and charities in the USA often cite allowing your cat to roam outdoors as a hallmark of a negligent owner, and many feline documentaries (such as My Cat From Hell) and advice columns will be scandalised should they come across a cat with unlimited access to the outdoors. As a result, European owners can come in for a hard time should they read, watch or interact with such sites / shows / books, as mentioned here, especially since USA-based shows and advice tends to dominate. In many European countries, including the UK, common consensus considers it cruel to deny cats access to the outdoors, with many charities refusing to rehome cats in flats (apartments) or houses with no outdoor space. The key factors involved in this difference mainly come down to traffic / population density (the USA has many more cars and much busier roads), hazards (the UK has very few wild animals that would actively prey on a cat) and law (cats are legally permitted to roam freely in the UK, and owners are not accountable for their cats in the same way that a dog owner is accountable for their dog). This may also be a matter of human convenience too — with so many people in the US living in apartments, sticking to the "cats must have access to the outdoors" rule would deny many people the right to keep a cat. Maintaining that all cats should be kept indoors levels the playing field.
Another feline-related one: Declawing is thorny territory in the US, but not illegal. It is certainly illegal in many other countries, which have deemed it mutilation of an animal. This comes up less often than the indoor/outdoor debate, since many US experts are also adamantly against declawing.
Similar to the declawing debate of cats above, in the United States, it's common for ferret owners to have their pets both neutered and descented (removing the skunk-like scent glands). However in Europe and other areas outside the US, the latter is considered mutilation and may actually be illegal to have performed (neutering is generally more acceptable, particularly for female ferrets, which can enter prolonged heat that is potentially life-threatening if she's not bred).
Mad Magazine has been mostly lauded for being fairly liberal and progressive socially, often mocking stereotypes and mores. However, until recently, its depictions of homosexuals have often been stereotypically offensive at best and downright hateful at worst in its history. Sergio Aragonés has stated some of his pantomime drawings of stereotypically effeminate men and butch lesbians are Old Shame.
Many aspects of American culture can be interpreted very different by Latin American Society:
For example, parents throwing out their children from the house when reached adulthood is considered the normal thing to do in the USA but in Latin America, where the economical situation is harder, and finding a home is very difficult, the norm is that if someone has not formed a family of their own, the most logical thing to do is to still live with their parents, even when having a career and a job.
Physical affection between parents and their children is also closer and warmer, for instance, a grown up man than still likes to kiss and cuddle with his mom may put him in Mammas Boy territory, but is considered as healthy and positive in Lat Am. Similarly, most toddlers sleep with their parents at least until they get to school, in the past the average Latin American family were very numerous and houses were small, so it was common for the younger children to sleep at their parents room, and also sleeping with the parents even when having a room of their own is seen as an affectionate and genuine show of bonding.
Physical punishment is another case of Values Dissonance, laws penalizing family aggression are not only much more recent, but what's considered abuse is also different. If a kid misbehave and their parents decide to pull their ear or giving him a slap may be overlooked by authorities if the kid in question really had it coming and was used a last resource. Physical abuse is only punished by the law if said acts are constant and disproportionate and the kid shows physical and or psychological damage.
Those who work in McDonald's in some parts of the West are looked down upon due to a stereotype that those workers are always school dropouts. However, in Southeast Asian countries not just McDonald's', but all fast food outlet staff are generally college students working part-time or those who were waiting for their high school test resultsnote Duration depends on the countries' respective educational system, but it is usually a long time. For them, working there is just an incentive to get job experience or grinding for extra pocket money. Or both.
Geert Wilders infamous speech. To most people of the BENELUX it is offensive because in it he makes statements that undermine a few values that the BENELUX is built upon (being the European Union, because the main siege of the European Union is in Belgium and Maroccans, because there are lots of Muslim immigrants that immigrate to the BENELUX on which part of the economy is based around), but the US has no problem with it and goes as far as to praise the guy for his actions. This is perhaps because many people in the US have a huge distrust for the European Union and want it to be destroyed as quickly as possible and think that Muslims should not be allowed to immigrate in a Western country.
For reasons similar to the abortion argument, discussions of circumcision, particularly in the US where it's become the norm, but where heavy opposition has begun to form in the last few decades, tend to become quite rabid. On the one hand, advocates usually believe that they as the parent have the unconditional right to make medical, cultural, or religious decisions for their children. On the other side, you tend to have Youth Rights advocates who believe that children have a right to not undergo an unecessary procedure until they're old enough to make a decision on it themselves. Ironically, the lines tend to reverse the abortion argument, with liberals pushing the "rights of the child," and conservatives pushing the "rights of the parents."
Its been noted by a few people that the general 'Boy's club' mentality held by Video Gamer and Nerd culture is greatly out-dated compared to outside views; generally people have adapted to giving women an equal lot in life without any question, and its seen as relatively normal now for a woman to work alongside men, buy property, and have an equal voice in what happens. In gaming and nerd culture, however, its seen that these areas are 'boys' things and perceive girls to only be a minority audience, and as such, shouldn't have a say in what those cultures are like or how they present women (and, to a lesser extent, LGBT and racial/ethnic minorities). Because of that, any move to make them 'more friendly' for women or other minorities, primarily removing offensive materials, is seen as unfair to those who enjoyed it, and feel like, to put it bluntly, 'women are taking their games and such away from them'. To others, however, especially feminists, regardless of how many of the fans are women, subjecting women to any kind of mistreatment is seen as pretty damn sexist, and while women may be a minority of who build up these audiences, they're still a large percentage of such, and deserve an equal voice.
'Social Justice Warriors', and people against censorship, tend to butt heads a lot concerning things like racist and homophobic humour, casual misogyny, objectification, Black Comedy Rape, and generally anything deemed offensive. On the one hand, its generally not meant seriously and people should be entitled to have a laugh at what they find amusing, even if its offensive, and people really shouldn't take things so seriously. But on the other hand, many people still deal with facing bigotry every day, and may have suffered traumatic attacks because of this that they're still scarred by, so these things being taken so lightly can be uncomfortable for them, if not actually be a painful reminder or a trigger for the memories of suchnote People who suffer traumatic experiences, such as rape or bigoted attacks in this case, can often have essentially flashbacks to those incidents if they're reminded of the attack via a 'trigger' (essentially, a reminder to the event, such as a sound or images depicting the event), which is a painful and emotionally taxing experience. 'Taking things lightly' isn't really a choice when you have to deal with this stuff regularly.
Media representation and 'affirmative action' is a similar issue. For some people, its important for media to show diversity and present people of all walks of life as important, positive figures, and failing to do so requires a real lack of foresight. For others, this is really self-righteous and isn't really important when you take into account bigger issues like lack of gay rights in Russia, race riots, and sex slave trafficking.
Similar to the above, First-World Feminism is the source of a split among many people. For some people, feminism has done its job and women are pretty much equal, if not have a certain level of privilege, and modern feminists are seen as people trying to play victim while complaining about issues that don't really need focus on when there's bigger issues that men have to face, or even issues women in other countries have to face that first-world women don'tnote for example, what, objectively, is worse, that male rape and abuse victims have no support for this while women in many countries are still treated as property, or that first-world women have to contend with media treating them as eye candy and plot devices designed to advance a male character's plot?; its also common for women in this corner to note that they, personally, have never faced any real mistreatment from men for their gender, thus showing that its not really an issue. However, as above, for many women sexism is still a huge issue they need to contend with daily, or have witnessed it firsthand and been shapen to fight against it, while seeing many of these issues as being perfectly legitimate note while what those groups deal with sucks, it also sucks to feel like your gender is seen as an object, and media presenting you as such does tend to badly shape how youths view women, which can easily cause a negative effect on tomorrow's treatment of such; alongside that, generally the lack of support for male victims is itself down to media representation not making this issue more important to people, which shows why media representation can be such a huge issue.