Prelude to the Apocalypse

[Blinge]

I would attempt to say something smart but cognitive dissonance has BOMBA'd my brain into oblivion

(the good yagawa kind of bomb btw, not the terrorist kind)
Its a sad time.

[BulletMagnet]

It would be really nice if this catches on.

It's especially infuriating that the people most opposed to health care reform in the US are the ones who constantly complain that we need to be bigger assholes to everyone because "other countries don't respect us" - I'm pretty sure that the biggest single factor when it comes to other countries writing us off as clueless lost causes has to be our pitifully cruel, inefficient and corrupt excuse for a health care system.

[Sima Tuna]

A 2022 study by The Commonwealth Fund found that the U.S. is the only high-income country without universal healthcare.

... We're number one, guys...

[orange808]

But, but...

Sarcasm(General Ignorance of Americans) {
How could the US afford such a thing?
}

People ask that fucking daft question all the time. Given that the nation already expends ~40% more than other developed nations on health care, there's a fucking money shortage?

It's a rather stupid fucking question to ask, huh? Americans have and spend more than anyone else, but they can't afford to implement a policy that costs less?

I can't understand why everyone asks how the nation could afford a health ministry expenditure. If I have a five moneys, I can afford to spend anything less than or equal to my five moneys.

Fuck. You should hear the fucking rambling bullshit and embarrassment when I show off the graph. The responses are golden. Everything from "the graph is wrong", "that's the liberal media lying", and "Eurotrash!".

Fuck. Of course, it meets my expectations for humanity in general. People aren't particularly clever. Myself included, no doubt--but, I can read a graph.

Then, they claim the 'Merican eagle health system is "better". Oops. Wrong again!

[Randorama]

I generally stay away from this thread, but I guess that frequent users could valuable feedback (...right?).

A bit of context:

I hold an Italian passport but I have been living abroad for 20 of my 44 years, due to educational and then work goals. I have been around (Central and Northern Europe countries, Australia, the three "fake Asia" countries), though I have always been in one job market (higher education). My current work regime is 20 weeks "on site", then 6 weeks "off site", i.e. I can leave and do what I want. I do not know if I qualify as a "migrant", "expatriate" or whatever, as it seems that those words have vastly different meanings that depend on people's whims (political orientation, life experiences, etc.). My initial disclaimer should be telling, regarding how I identify myself.

I am currently spending some holiday time back "in the motherland", and had an unpleasant situation. I had two old acquaintances of mine who are the typical people who never leave their hometowns, and my hometown is a small place: you can guess the rest. During dinner, they dragged themselves into some discussion that could be reduced to "immigration is inevitable and good" vs. "immigration is the doom of us all". I managed to kill the conversation by announcing that I was going away at once unless we would have switched to a conversation about old arcade games. We talked about my uncle's arcade glory days, in case you wonder, but there was too much bitching & moaning about my uncle usually increasing difficulty levels to max, ahem (NO, I didn't defend that bastard of my uncle!).

...An annoying bit that keeps floating my mind is the "immigration is inevitable and good" side. I know the other side well: let's just say that, in the eyes of many people from many different countries, I qualify as a job & women's stealer [insert here joke on penis size and work skills bragging]. The other side sounds new to me, but chiefly because I am uniformed. I try to look up some useful info to read, but I guess that "immigration is inevitable" is not a good starting point, at least not for Google/Bing/etc. Any suggestions? I guess that I can manage finding sources myself once a good soul can point me to the right direction that I am obviously ignoring.

P.S. The notion of "discussion" for the average Italian revolves around shouting matches and vague claims usually flying in the face of any factual knowledge, plus obligatory grade school insults (and the occasional scuffle). I swear, at some point I will have a nightmare of me going aroun' town and everyone looks and talks like variants of The Donald. Culture shock about my own place of origin, check!

EDIT: Some more context. When I studied in NL, I was living in the same house with an Ukrainian girl (of Hebrew descent), a Russian girl (also of Hebrew descent), and a Palestian girl who sought refugee status due to her family's...problems with Hamas. We used to watch Voyager together because they literally worshipped Capt. Janeway. I taught to Syrian, Afghani and other nationalities' refugees in two different countries, and I had and have now colleagues from Ukraine and Russia, and colleagues who escaped wars from various countries. Let's just say that I have ample personal experience about migration/refugee matters per se, but I wonder what "Joe politician" people narrate on the topic, to get elected.

[Blinge]

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do"

Is this adhered to or not?
Pretty much sums it up

[Sima Tuna]

quality post

Honestly, it sounds to me like you are the one with more knowledge. Whatever opinion you come to on immigration and immigrants, at least you'll have arrived there by your own experiences-what you've seen and heard.

I don't think there are any easy answers to these questions. Only some very obviously wrong ones which you've already identified.

[BIL]

...An annoying bit that keeps floating my mind is the "immigration is inevitable and good" side. I know the other side well: let's just say that, in the eyes of many people from many different countries, I qualify as a job & women's stealer [insert here joke on penis size and work skills bragging]. The other side sounds new to me, but chiefly because I am uniformed. I try to look up some useful info to read, but I guess that "immigration is inevitable" is not a good starting point, at least not for Google/Bing/etc. Any suggestions? I guess that I can manage finding sources myself once a good soul can point me to the right direction that I am obviously ignoring.

A little off-the-shelf, but perhaps by that same token, the mirthfully-initialled TBI (Tony Blair Institute) might be worth a look. While this paper is a little old (2018), it's a decent sketch of an ideal.

As for less balanced idealism, on either extreme, I fear I'd end up posting The Very Best Of Reddit with a 4chan chaser. And a selection of campaign materials and press releases from various leading political parties.

When we finally write that R2RKMF anthology, perhaps we can wangle a second book: "Memoirs Of The Job Snatchers."

[orange808]

Economic downturns and famine are the number one causes of social unrest in recorded human history inside established and developed nations (based on time period comparison and context). The second most common cause of social unrest is extreme economic equality. Although, you could argue that an economic shock triggers conflict and domestic inequality keeps the fuse burning--even as the economy recovers.

Funny thing, historians and economists don't dwell on immigration specifically. It's about the money. Even before we had sophisticated economies and fluid currency, it was still technically all about the money. It's really no surprise that Ancient Egypt was so stable. The dependable Nile kept the food on the table, the desert kept foreigners at a distance, and expectations for standards of living were pretty low. Inequality was always an issue. When famine hit, the Upper and Lower Egypt civil war talk resurfaced.

The root of the problem is how people perceive the economy and their circumstances. Given the return of widespread extreme domestic inequality over the last fifty years, it's really no surprise that there is friction. Of course, revolution changes nothing and voting changes even less. Only a terrible plague or a massive world war redistribute capital. We need a new approach, but our ruling class isn't interested in changing anything. Truthfully, they probably can't. The French monarchy (at least their economists) understood what needed to be done, but the aristocrats wouldn't allow reform. The guillotine followed shortly thereafter.

[Randorama]

Blinge-sensei:

In the sense of "time to argue like The Donald"? I need to warm up a bit, it's been a while since I've interacted with them locals! (Fun fact: we're not too far from Rome, so it's a quite appropriate remark). I am too used to rational argument on work matters - then again, I refuse to discuss football with just about anyone because discussions degenerate in 10 seconds flat, irrespective of the country.

Sima Tuna:

Well, thanks a lot. It's just that "Immigration is inevitable" sounded like a new brand of "stupid" that I didn't recognise. I tried to look it up but I couldn't find any policians/ONG people/snake oil sellers proposing it in an explicit manner. The person who proposed the idea belongs to what in Italy is labelled as Sinistra ZTL (Zona Traffico Limitato) (literally 'limited traffic zone left'), i.e. radical chics who usually live cooped up in expensive city centres. The other person was your run-of-the-mill bigoted conservative fellow.

Both were ol' tabletop RPG/videogame/etc. buddies, so we shared something else when we were young and these topics wouldn't crop up. My own opinion...let me pick up BIL-dono's comment, if I may.

BIL-dono: thanks for the paper; I will be reading it tomorrow and start from there.

Idealism...yes, I keep an eye on Italian newspapers and I generally see that most opinion piece journalists regurgitate Reddit-style comments with perhaps less profanities but with the same disdain for basic facts, logic, etc. as zaku-level interwebs trolls. All in function of their corporate overlords and their ideologies, because the media exist to manufacture consent.

My general two cents on topic, anyway.

If people move because they want a different chance in a different country, I would call the phenomenon

- "immigration" if it is aimed at ultimately changing "homes" and life-style;
-"expatriation" if it aimed at working abroad for remuneration and nothing else, even if for long periods;
- People risking lives because we bombed them to the stone age...I'd say they are "refugees" and "desperate people", certainly not of their will.

My own experience, in a nutshell...

- Immigrants adapt to their new environment but they still miss "home", if only because it becomes a mythic place, well-buried in their memories;

- Expatriates are strangers in strangers' lands, sometimes relishing their role as "the odd ones out". Anyway, sooner or later they will go "home" with some monetary trophy;

- Refugees are a category that should "disappear" by, well, stopping genocides, invasions, wars and so on (OK, climate change is a topic we can set aside, in this case). Humans' most beloved place is "home". Let's start with
asking ourselves a simple question: can we avoid problems by simply not obliterating someone else's home? Of course, our corporate overlords will answer "who gives a fuck", but at least an honest answer would be nice.

At a less abstract level of conversation (e.g. dinner, pizza, etc.) with acquaintances, I am reasoning as follows.

If someone says that their "immigration is inevitable", I interpret the comment as "we need to keep bombing their homes and countries because we need low-cost labour: our corporate overlords are right". I'd start from pointing out this, and then explaining that maybe, just maybe, being faithful to corporate overlord dogma may not be consistent with their political views.

If someone says "immigration is the doom of us all"...I ask exactly which neck of the woods they come from, and then if they know which neck of the woods their great-grandparents come from. Any answer that is not "we never moved from X for at least 20 generations" gets an attempt at windpipe extraction with bare hands from me. I also check if they are consistent in beliefs with a different brand of corporate overlords.

I may just spend my future courtesy dinners violently hijacking conversations to videogames and the football, I guess. A certain type of "politics discussion" that crops up at dinner time and that really revolves around regurgitating fairy tales from one brand of propaganda makes me want to become a hermit. Or, perhaps, never set a single foot again "in the motherland".

Fun fact: I once had to endure a "debate" with British white colleagues in Sweden who insisted that "expatriates" is a word usually abused by white rich immigrants (i.e. them). To show solidarity to the non-white people, I was supposed to use the word "immigrant" for myself and others. I introduced them to the founder of a blog called "blackexpatriates.com" or something, and declined to discuss the matter further. A certain type of "public school Brit" tends to think that Received Pronunciation and vaguely posh choice of vocabulary terms substitute knowledge of facts and logic, after all.

...Windpipe extraction is a gory business, to be frank.

[Air Master Burst]

To some extent the open borders people have a point in that as a species we only have finite resources on a single planet that gets smaller every day.

However, capitalism's rules clearly state that having your bloodline be the last one alive on the last piece of barely-inhabitable land is the only victory condition.

[Sima Tuna]

The problem with completely open borders is that assholes abuse the situation, such as by selling guns from the US to Mexico while driving human trafficking and meth/fent from Mexico to the US. The Cartels are a very real problem which affect the entire USA. Mexico is unable to solve this problem and the US is unwilling... Or perhaps the US attempting to steamroll Cartel houses with tanks would cause a greater international incident than the Middle East. So a completely open border is a no-go. Where you find open borders, you find organized crime exploiting same.

But that says nothing about the immigration process. Many have certainly argued that the legal path to immigration is too onerous and should be altered. Cultural differences are another issue which have no solution. If a person doesn't feel truly part of the country or culture, they may feel no loyalty towards it and no obligation to follow its rules (beyond perhaps that basic decency all honorable folk ought to feel.) If the rules of the land are inconvenient, well it's not uncommon to see immigrants disregard them. I know some immigrant communities (from personal experience) I won't name where tax evasion and other business cheating is extremely common. But these aren't the communities that get slated in the media.

Many immigrants are (historically, and I have no reason to believe this has changed) driven to organized crime groups specifically because of difficulties arising after emigrating to the US. The authorities of the country seem not to care or are openly involved in oppressing them, which then gives groups like the Triads, Mafia and other local gangs a space to operate. The gang is also culturally similar to the immigrant (similar background) and thus may be seen as more sympathetic. Or it may be that the gang arises organically, as groups of immigrants band together to protect themselves from the depredations of their hostile, culturally-distinct neighbors.

All of this stems from differences between people and our inability to resolve those differences peacefully and with kindness. I therefore do suspect it is a problem with no solution, being a conflict as old as our race.

[emphatic]

Without borders, there can be no more refugees. I mean, what's stopping the people coming after the refugees if there is no border with a force to keep it closed for them to cross?

[Sengoku Strider]

When you were a kid, what did you think the world was going to be like when you grew up?

Spoiler

[To Far Away Times]

When you were a kid, what did you think the world was going to be like when you grew up?

Spoiler

Would the orange color rub off when it gets wet?

[Air Master Burst]

(NOT FOR MEN)

So much for freedom from burdensome overregulation, I guess.

[Sengoku Strider]

(NOT FOR MEN)

So much for freedom from burdensome overregulation, I guess.

Mike dreamed these up, spent hours painstakingly designing them in 3D rendering software to ensure proper dimensions and throbbing vein accuracy, then spent hours more lovingly printing them out in all the colours of the rainbow.

To own the libs.

[orange808]

Some reckless parents are making the American gun situation worse, but the problem is the saturated gun market, lax gun control, and ridiculous gun culture.

Every American that doesn't actively push back at guns is guilty. Of course, we don't want to take on any difficult changes, so we arrest the parents. It's easier.

Seems cowardly to me.

[Sima Tuna]

I'll own the blood on my hands, and make the same trade every day for the right to bear arms myself. You can be mad about that if you like. I'd rather not see anyone shot but I won't trade my right at any cost.

I'll hold the same opinion even if a spree shooter guns me down tomorrow. My right to have a gun at my home to protect my loved ones is worth it.

Disarming America is impossible in any case. This country was built by gun-owning citizens. America still has plenty of wild places, where a man with no firearm could easily lose his life to a large predator on two legs or four. Countries like England and Japan don't understand because they don't have wild animals there that will rip off your head and shit down your neck.

[BulletMagnet]

I'll own the blood on my hands, and make the same trade every day for the right to bear arms myself.

It's not the right to bear arms that's the problem, it's the extreme (and, IMO, baldly bad-faith) interpretation of the Second Amendment as the right for pretty much anyone with any amount (or lack) of training, or even mental issues and a criminal record, to own pretty much any quantity of pretty much any kind of firearm, including any and every accessory and modification under the sun and be able to bring it just about anywhere, fully loaded, with essentially no restrictions, "well-regulated militia" be damned. And that the only "solution" to bad actors somehow ending up armed to the teeth is to have everyone armed to the teeth all the time.

[Sima Tuna]

I'll own the blood on my hands, and make the same trade every day for the right to bear arms myself.

It's not the right to bear arms that's the problem, it's the extreme (and, IMO, baldly bad-faith) interpretation of the Second Amendment as the right for pretty much anyone with any amount (or lack) of training, or even mental issues and a criminal record, to own pretty much any quantity of pretty much any kind of firearm, including any and every accessory and modification under the sun and be able to bring it just about anywhere, fully loaded, with essentially no restrictions, "well-regulated militia" be damned. And that the only "solution" to bad actors somehow ending up armed to the teeth is to have everyone armed to the teeth all the time.

I'm all in favor of some gun controls. The ghost guns ban is fine. We already ban full auto. If you buy a gun, you have to get a background check run first and it needs to come back clean. There's often a waiting period. That's how my state works, anyway, and I'm fine with all of it.

But I absolutely will not give up my right to own a personal firearm, and I don't care who says I'm responsible for what. I wouldn't give up my car either, no matter how many people die to reckless drivers every year. I've never done anything to misuse the right to bear arms, and I'll not be punished for what I haven't done.

Spoiler

If somebody wants to say

Every American that doesn't actively push back at guns is guilty.

Then that's fine by me. Call me guilty. I'd rather be called guilty than watch an entire citizenry summarily disarmed by their government.

Something I don't think is quite understood by proponents of gun bans is that a gun ban affects everyone... Except those in power already. Gun bans affect ethnic minorities just as they affect the majority. The only people it doesn't affect are those with so much money they can buy licensed bodyguards/corrupt police escorts (who have guns, ofc.) Or those who hold all the political power and who can just order the police to protect them... The police also having guns.

Disarming the populace will not disarm police. It will not disarm the megacorporations. It will not disarm corrupt politicians. It will not disarm gangs. It will not disarm cartels. It won't disarm most of the people who should probably be disarmed.

Banning guns (which is incidentally impossible in America, since there are so many guns in circulation already) might stop school shootings. By which I mean, it would replace school shootings with school stabbings or school car attacks. Which are, to be fair, less deadly. But the conditions which create the school shooter mentality are not altered one whit by banning the instrument of the outrage. The would-be school shooter just has to select a different tool. One which is less effective. And that's IF you could actually ban guns. Because if you can't outright ban all guns, then the school shooters are going to steal them from Grandpa, or build one with 3d printing and purchasing a few parts, or buy one at a gun show, or something else. Since a school shooter usually doesn't have a criminal record prior to their spree, background checks don't work unless they're screening for something else... Like mental instability. Many of the spree shooter cases seem like situations where the student gave off serious warning signs for a long time and these were ignored by all the adults around them. I'm not blaming the parents. We're all responsible for what WE do, and nothing else. But maybe this country should start to treat emotional and mental illnesses with the gravity they deserve, and to get some of these people help before tragedy strikes.

And hey, maybe we should have a law on the books that says if you write a manifesto about murdering people and somebody sees it, you shouldn't get to buy a gun for a couple years.

[orange808]

I like guns, so fuck it. It doesn't affect me, anyway. Nobody I know got hurt.

Just write what you mean.

Good job with the fake "I'll own it" and coming back with a bitching complaint that you won't be punished--actively complaining about the prospect of being asked to own it.

[Sima Tuna]

I like guns, so fuck it. It doesn't affect me, anyway. Nobody I know got hurt.

Just write what you mean.

Good job with the fake "I'll own it" and coming back with a bitching complaint that you won't be punished--actively complaining about the prospect of being asked to own it.

It's not fake. I tried to add some context. Even if somebody I knew did get hurt, I'd still not want guns banned.

[orange808]

I like guns, so fuck it. It doesn't affect me, anyway. Nobody I know got hurt.

Just write what you mean.

Good job with the fake "I'll own it" and coming back with a bitching complaint that you won't be punished--actively complaining about the prospect of being asked to own it.

It's not fake. I tried to add some context. Even if somebody I knew did get hurt, I'd still not want guns banned.

Because you like it, so fuck everyone and everything.

[Sima Tuna]

I like guns, so fuck it. It doesn't affect me, anyway. Nobody I know got hurt.

Just write what you mean.

Good job with the fake "I'll own it" and coming back with a bitching complaint that you won't be punished--actively complaining about the prospect of being asked to own it.

It's not fake. I tried to add some context. Even if somebody I knew did get hurt, I'd still not want guns banned.

Because you like it, so fuck everyone and everything.

I don't know anyone who has been killed by a gun, but I do know one person whose life was saved by a gun. Her dog was mauling her to death, and a neighbor with a gun heard the screaming, came and shot the dog. She had been kicking, fighting etc and nothing else worked to get the dog off her. Only when the neighbor shot the dog multiple times did it decide to slink off.

If you want to boil that down to "I like guns, so fuck everyone else" then you do you.

[BulletMagnet]

I'm all in favor of some gun controls. The ghost guns ban is fine. We already ban full auto. If you buy a gun, you have to get a background check run first and it needs to come back clean. There's often a waiting period. That's how my state works, anyway, and I'm fine with all of it.

If polling is accurate a majority of gun owners, including card-carrying NRA members, are in general agreement with you on this; that being the case - and this is not at all meant to be aimed at you specifically - I do wish that the responsible majority of gun owners would push back a whole lot harder on the absolutists who always somehow seem to get their way, to the detriment of all of us. To wit, the recent Supreme Court ruling on bump stocks should have provoked outrage across the board from gun owners who don't want to be lumped in with the extremists, but I honestly doubt it will change a single vote come November, which suggests to me that a lot of people who claim to take their responsibility seriously aren't living up to their own stated ideals.

[neorichieb1971]

I'm pretty sure 1 in 5 gun buyers in the USA would admit the gun they are buying is to shoot up a school. So it should be mandantory to ask the question.

As for immigration, there is so many levels of immigration.

Legal (passed all checks, paid your dues and got in)
Illegal (passed no checks, but your ok.. got in)
Doubly illegal (lied about your identity, total nutjob who kills people, gets in)

I think everyone agrees legal is ok. Illegal is a little taboo, because you have the legals paying 1000's of £ $ Yen's and whatevers to get in, and watching people bypass every legal system and still get in. I mean, I'm standing in an airport, getting held in lines of people, questioned by airport staff by my own country.. Meanwhile back at the cliffs of Dover, some folk are entering the country by circumvention.

Then you have the double illegal, who nobody wants in your neighbourhood. But unfortunately we cannot tell the difference because they hide their identities.

The world is shit because you try to do the right thing, and watch someone completely circumvent the rules of engagement, and they will win... because they are clever, and the law lets them get away with it. Having standards, morales and stuff like that is for folk last century.. This century, its the wild west again, we just haven't acknowledged it yet.

[To Far Away Times]

Just venting my frustration about frequent mass shootings and those that fight to make sure they keep happening.

[ExitPlanetDust]

Yeah I had a long talk with someone at work today about it. I kind of regret it. They accused me of supporting a nanny state among other things. It’s so depressing. Their answer is to deregulate everything and hold people accountable after the violence. Just hopeless.

[To Far Away Times]

People daydreaming of a heroic Clint Eastwood standoff against the might of the US Military should probably not be the ones deciding our children’s fate at schools.

Because, let’s face it, if a tyrannical US government used its military to attack its own citizens we would measure the military’s victory in hours.