CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Lisa Jackson7 › Posts

Posts by Lisa Jackson7

277 posts shown.

Amanda Moore8 said:The real issue arises when an "outsider" fails to respect the culture and identity of the country they’ve entered—especially when they expect the host nation to bend to their will—which is exactly what we're seeing right now. Borders are becoming porous, systems are buckling under the pressure, and both governments and individuals seem too intimidated to take any meaningful action. Honestly, I think this brand of political correctness imported from the USA is going to be the end of us.

It should be common sense—an "outsider" adapts to the culture of the country they move to. Plus, most people should just stay temporarily, then head back home once they've raised the standard of living for their families and their own communities.
And obviously, the host country needs to actually benefit from their arrival, too.

I have no clue why things don't work that way anymore...
Joshua Kelly51 said:Look at how different societies have handled immigrants—some well, some poorly. What do you think causes these varying state reactions? ☕

Immigrants aren't conquerors, and changing the culture they move into isn't their goal. ☕ You might be missing the point that immigrants represent a distinct subgroup within any society they join. ☕

"Learned behavior" should be based on basic humanity and sharing a planet, not on a forced rejection of one's own identity just because someone else adopts a foreign one—provided that foreign identity isn't actively trying to dismantle the local culture. ☕

Lobbying groups have way more pull when it comes to immigration policy in some countries than others—it’s definitely not a level playing field everywhere.
Some countries have it in spades—looking at you, Germany—while others are barely hanging on by a thread, like Canada.

Immigrants aren't conquerors—they aren't out here trying to overhaul the society they’re moving into. ☕ Maybe you just don't get that immigrants are their own damn category in any society they move to—it's just how it works. ☕

Powerful interest groups are basically using immigration as a tool to reshape America—it's all about social engineering. Their goal? To give these people a life that’s way better than anything they'd find in a refugee camp... obviously. And let's be real—once their own countries get wrecked (one way or another), plenty of today's "humanitarian" types actually had their hands dirty in making that happen.

Real behavior is all about being human—sharing this one planet we live on. It’s not about forcing people to ditch who they are just to make room for some foreign identities—as long as those identities aren't out here trying to wreck the local culture. ☕

Thanks—just trying to hold onto my own identity while respecting everyone else's.
So I was reading this the other day...

Back in '78 or '79—right after Mao Zedong passed away and Deng Xiaoping started opening up the Chinese economy to the rest of the world—he had a sit-down with Jimmy Carter, who was the US President at the time.

During the meeting, Carter apparently went off on one of his usual rants about human rights, specifically bringing up things like freedom of movement... which basically means the right to move to the USA.

Well, Deng gave him a response that was honestly pretty genius (quoting him directly here):
"I completely understand your concern, Mr. President. But just how many Chinese people do you need? 10 million? 50? 100?"
Pretty soon, all those "unresolved issues" were settled to everyone's satisfaction. 😁

I bet that comeback hasn't been forgotten by anyone—it definitely seems like it sparked some "interesting" ideas for certain people later on... ☕
wiredtiger8 said:I still don't get one thing...

You people here who are constantly out there championing immigrants, refugees—call them whatever you want at this point... I can wrap my head around having a stance that sort of... partially... supports certain aspects of their struggles or whatever... it doesn't even matter right now.

But this relentless, non-stop defense of absolutely everything tied to them... like... they aren't worse workers than Americans or anyone else... their culture isn't actually different from ours... they aren't more or less uneducated... it’s not true that they can't integrate... it’s not true that they’re going to flip the entire demographic structure of the US in just a few years... blah, blah, blah...

...Well, that part just flies right over my head.

Is it actually possible that you believe all that? Are they really just identical in every single way to the native-born population here in America?
What, they just need a month or two... or maybe a year to settle in and find their footing? And that's it?
Everything stays exactly the same as it was before they arrived, except maybe some demographic stats look a little better?

I assume if you have skin in the game, being objective is pretty much impossible. You might be right about some points, but you're obviously leaning heavily toward one side.

For example, say you work for a law firm specializing in immigrant rights... or you're the owner or CEO of an auto manufacturer and you need fresh cheap labor for the assembly line... or you're selling batteries to a colony of refugees passing right by your house... you get the idea.

It’s all just self-interest—you reap the benefits while everyone else picks up the tab.

Joshua Kelly51 said:An open letter:

Check out the latest open letters over at

c/p :

An open letter: A call for scientists to embrace tolerance, solidarity, and basic humanity.

Every day, we see news reports about people caught in refugee lines in our neighboring countries, just trying to find a safe place to live and a future for their kids. Beyond the basic struggle to survive, they face endless obstacles designed specifically to block them from entering or moving through Western nations. This only deepens the misery of people who were forced to flee their homes in search of security. Given how the media usually frames this, we need to clarify one thing: these are forced migrants. They didn't choose this; they were driven out by a perfect storm of political instability, war, sheer survival, economic collapse, and the worsening effects of climate change. They are refugees, plain and simple. It’s time to stop using labels like "adventurers," "deserters," "fakes," "criminals," or "terrorists"—terms often thrown around by biased media outlets and certain politicians to distort the reality of the situation.

It’s becoming impossible to ignore the rising tide of anti-immigrant rhetoric sweeping through America and much of Europe. We’re seeing a surge in statements designed to fuel fear, intolerance, and xenophobia. This kind of discourse isn't harmless; it builds a foundation for hostility, hate speech, and discrimination. Ultimately, this atmosphere can escalate into actual violence against people in need—whether they are just passing through a community or settling down there. With recent talk regarding potential mass arrivals at our borders, we want to take this opportunity to dismantle some of the common myths and prejudices surrounding refugees and migrants. As both citizens and members of the scientific community, we are calling for tolerance, solidarity, and basic humanity.

The point of this letter is to sound the alarm on the risks posed by distorted perceptions regarding refugees entering the country. While research suggests that American society doesn't typically exhibit extreme xenophobia on this issue, you can still find a massive amount of online commentary fueling ethnic and religious intolerance—sometimes even inciting outright violence against refugees. In the current climate, this kind of rhetoric only serves to radicalize public opinion further. Because of this, we believe it is essential for official government agencies to step up and provide clear communication. Citizens need to be informed about the actual situation, the root causes driving people to arrive, and the basic rights and needs of refugees. Doing so would help foster a sense of solidarity within American society. Unfortunately, we’ve recently heard narrow-minded, xenophobic, and Islamophobic stances coming from certain domestic politicians regarding this so-called "refugee crisis." We want to remind these individuals that their actions are instrumental in shaping public opinion. They carry a heavy moral and political responsibility when it comes to these issues.

Research shows that how government policymakers frame refugee policy directly shapes public opinion. It’s just as much about personal experience—actually knowing asylum seekers or having lived through displacement ourselves. If we want to prevent xenophobia, the best defense is simple: better information, critical thinking, and actual human connection to these stories. As scientists, academics, and students, our job is to foster critical thinking rooted in hard evidence. Right now, amid this refugee crisis—defined by border walls, military deployments, and a total breakdown of humanitarian values—extremism is gaining ground. Fear and panic are being manufactured. We need to strip the political theater and high-tension rhetoric away from discussions regarding migration and its aftermath. It is both a political and a scientific responsibility to move this conversation back to the facts. This isn't a passing phase; this is a permanent feature of our society and the global landscape. We need a real debate, not a shouting match.

As scientists, we’re calling for a bit of sanity in this debate. We need moderate, measured rhetoric from everyone involved—not fear-mongering or panic, but an approach rooted in tolerance and solidarity. We also urge those working directly with refugees to maintain a proactive, positive stance by highlighting real-world success stories. What the public needs right now is critical thinking, empathy, and genuine support. The United States has a moral imperative to act decisively toward those seeking protection. This isn't just about following international law and our own legal obligations; it’s about remembering our own history. We know what it feels like to be displaced, and we remember when Americans were looking for refuge abroad and found open doors in other countries. Furthermore, we need to fix the cracks in the American asylum system. There are still too many gaps, particularly when it comes to setting people up for success. Once someone is granted protection or enters through the quota system, they need the functional tools required to integrate and build independent lives. The U.S. certainly has the capacity, the experience, and the will to make that happen.

Look, despite all the socioeconomic mess in America that keeps driving our own people to move away, we can't ignore the refugees arriving now looking for help. These two issues aren't linked by cause and effect; they're separate problems. If we look back at how Americans stepped up during the crises of the nineties, or even how neighbors rallied together during last year's massive flooding, we know what solidarity looks like. We need to provide support to those seeking a fresh start on American soil. Their needs are massive, especially when it comes to mental health and psychosocial support. Beyond the formal institutional aid, regular citizens can make a difference through simple, basic acts of kindness. The challenges ahead are significant, but I'm confident they're solvable. It’s time for both the public and the academic community to step up and actually engage with the reality of the refugee situation.

🙂☕

Someone brought up Canada.

Regarding that summer school/seminar series on the topic of refugees:

Because our asylum systems are so poorly structured, refugees often move through the system before anyone can actually assess their specific needs for protection. The real red flag here is the rising tide of unaccompanied or separated minors traveling through irregular routes. Even with all the massive resources international groups like the UN have poured into building up capacity, we're still seeing this gap. Most nations around here lack the actual bureaucratic muscle to protect or integrate newcomers, whether they're fleeing Syria or other crises. There's no real infrastructure to handle people with specific needs. On top of that, asylum seekers often avoid looking for protection in places like Canada, Mexico, or the US because the system is rigged against them. Between the restrictive legal hurdles—which lead to dismal approval rates—and the total lack of real integration opportunities, the standard of care just isn't there.


Key takeaways from the lecture:

Here’s the bottom line from the school: The fact that our three current systems are failing to actually protect refugees is deeply concerning. It’s not just because they’re still being built out; it's more troubling that the only thing driving us toward a functional, fair, and humane asylum system is external pressure and meeting specific requirements for international integration.

The US, Mexico, Mexico, and the rest of the North American states are legally tied to their commitments. As signatories to the 1951 Geneva Convention and its 1967 protocol, they have a full obligation to provide international protection to anyone fleeing persecution. It’s not optional.


The lecture took place three months ago ☕

Source:

I finally get the point of these talks now. They’re actually useful, especially for people who need to work on developing some genuine empathy for others and those who see the world differently 👍☕

Look, I'm not claiming I have proof—and I can't provide any—that comtesse or Michael Roberts7 are professionally tied to the immigration issue.
But I can certainly cast doubt.

As for this "open letter"... to me, it looks more like an offer of services to the government to calm down the peasants whose land is being crossed by a bunch of strangers.
I don't harbor hate, but I can definitely feel fear and concern (or maybe not, the media machine keeps showing cracks, nothing is perfect, but hey, we're making progress...).

Maybe this open letter was sent to governments, the United Nations, big arms manufacturers, oil tycoons, the Trilateral Commission—whatever you want to call the masters of the world—begging them not to burn down entire global regions and displace millions just so they can stay warm by the fires and line their pockets.

Or maybe they're volunteering to form a human wall around the Syrian border?

I'm not writing this to force anyone to make a sacrifice for the greater good—a sacrifice I wouldn't even make myself—just reminding you that there used to be appeals to give up nuclear weapons... feels like a lifetime ago.

Karen Doyle72 said:You have to admit, the vast majority of Americans are shielded from the physical presence of immigrants. What the price of that is, and how it impacts those who aren't so protected, is something we'll just have to wait and see.

Fair question... 👍
What exactly does a multicultural society mean? in Close to Politics ·
Raymond Peterson81 said:Multiculturalism is such a heated topic lately—honestly, anyone who considers themselves civilized (and isn't just picking their nose) and isn't a hardcore American nationalist tends to back the idea of multiculturalism (s). Forgive me if I sound full of typical prejudices, but it seems to me that the push for multiculturalism mostly comes from leftists, liberals, and that crowd. It’s hard to find a conservative who actually advocates for it, though I suppose there might be one or two here and there. So... can someone actually explain to me what a multicultural society is supposed to mean?

I’ll throw out a simple, abstract example here—don't take it too literally unless you're looking to troll the thread or turn this into some ridiculous joke that would make the whole discussion pointless.

Let’s imagine a little multicultural village consisting of five houses.

House 1 — a couple from Scandinavia
House 2 — a couple from Maghreb House 3
House 3 — a couple from Argentina House 4
House 4 — a couple from Australia House 5
House 5 — a couple from Japan

So, what exactly is the goal of a multicultural society? Is the idea to keep each house exactly as it was originally, preserving the specific customs those couples hold dear while working to bridge differences through tolerance... or is the goal to just blend everyone together, erasing those "outdated concepts" of nations and geographic identities because, hey, we're all living on the same planet anyway?

If the people from these five houses all mix together, then it isn't a multicultural society anymore. How can it be called multicultural if everything gets blended? After a few generations, you'll just have a massive mix of everything—it doesn't matter what you call it, but it won't be "multi," it'll just be "uni."

The real issue is the state they're aiming for—the powers that be (call them the nomenclature, whatever)—which is basically what could happen in the not-so-distant future...

And that is what a multicultural society actually looks like... the way they want it...
1. the rulers
2. the technocracy
3. internal security forces (military and police)
4. the workers

Each of these 4 layers will have its own distinct culture, so yeah, we'll be "multicultural."

They'll crush any sense of belonging to a specific community or culture that the security forces can't control through straight-up repression or every other form of manipulation.
Casey Gomez said:When a person does something kind for someone else, they often feel good about themselves—and frankly, they do it precisely because that feeling is the reward. Take, for instance, why you wouldn't turn down a gift from a donor. You wouldn't want to offend them, and more importantly, you wouldn't want them to feel redundant. Humans have this innate, driving need to be useful, to feel like they matter. So, by accepting that gift, you’re actually doing them a favor by validating their sense of worth. It’s the exact same deal with altruists. They chase that "selfless" high, performing acts of charity just to maintain that internal glow. To put it bluntly, altruists are just addicts chasing a dopamine hit through good deeds. 👍

If it feels like someone is trying to buy us off with "gifts"—expecting something morally shady in return (whether right now or down the road)—then we say no, and let the donor be insulted.
If we actually have any self-respect and aren't just mindless drones.
And look, feeling empathy or standing in solidarity isn't a crime. Maybe one day it'll pay off... from someone... somehow.
"Quote:"
Jonathan Brooks8 said:At its core, this is a question of whether hope even exists anymore. If someone isn't responsible for a massive catastrophe and lacks the power to fix it, is that excuse sufficient to justify ignoring the smaller problems they *can* actually solve? If there is no prospect of resolving the grand conflict, should we still bother providing aid just to prove we are trying? That is how the "average American" might view it.

Politicians, however, aren't permitted to think like the average citizen—not with their "heavy responsibilities" or "grave seriousness." Since they operate as mere "pragmatists," the individual must step up and shoulder their own "small responsibility."

Which means the only real criticism we could level at volunteers and humanitarian workers is that they shouldn't allow hope itself to be extinguished—I realize how poetic that sounds, but frankly, I don't care.

Otherwise, the drivers behind this crisis aren't accidental; they are tectonic and political in nature—at least, that's how it appears to me...

If that "little" issue can actually be fixed... though even in cases involving refugees—or maybe just economic migrants—it’s usually impossible to tell. You can toss some cash at a charity to ease your own conscience, sure, but getting real, unmediated contact with them? Seems pretty much impossible to me. Maybe some outlier will totally flip their life upside down—like, actually head out to the US-Mexico border to a massive migrant camp just to try and meet the people they're helping—but those are rare exceptions that just get swallowed up by the media flood on our screens.

Look, this isn't even the same deal as those floods back in May last year—and honestly, I actually feel for those people and get what they went through.
I feel way closer to those friends now—you know, the ones whose homes were actually on the line back then—and I ended up helping out a bunch of other people through them too.

Is that actually bad—or just selfish?
"Quote:"
Politicians can't wrap their heads around how a regular person thinks—they're too busy hiding behind all that "huge responsibility" and "extreme seriousness" nonsense. Since they claim to be the "practical experts," it’s on us—the actual people—to step up and take ownership of our own little slice of responsibility.

Honestly, the only thing you could even possibly gripe about regarding volunteers and humanitarian workers is that they won't let hope die.Look, I know that sounds all poetic and stuff—but honestly? I couldn't care less.
Look, we really shouldn't be this cynical—if I ever actually run into one of those volunteers, there's no way I'm laughing at them, even in my head, given everything they do...
"Quote:"
Look, the reasons behind this whole crisis aren't just random accidents—it’s deep-seated, tectonic-level politics. That’s how it looks from where I’m sitting...
Hell no, they aren't.
For the people who actually engineered this crisis, it’s a total win-win—doesn't matter how "regular" folks across America react. I mentioned the possibility of a referendum over on the Politics thread regarding the immigrant issue, though I don't see that ever actually happening here in the States.

Look, my bad again for blowing up a few posts back—that’s seriously not how I usually roll on this forum...
Jonathan Brooks8 said:Exactly all of that.
But honestly, even just meeting them upon arrival—providing water, food, medicine, making sure they have access to a restroom or a place to sleep, or simply speaking to them in any language at all—that is already vastly more than what the political establishment or the federal bureaucracy ever manages to do. But that is precisely what the volunteers are doing; if you actually watch the news, pay attention for once....

Helping people once they've arrived is fine—it's basic human decency, sure—but...
I’m skeptical, honestly. My distrust just keeps growing every time I turn on the news. It's not about hate; I just want to understand what's *actually* going down.
Can you really put out a forest fire with a tiny little cup of water?

This article hits on a few things pretty well.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...mediterranean/

An industrial zone right on the border acting as a refugee camp? Maybe there's logic there, though the real answer should be directed at our own leaders... stop the fires, end the wars... because they actually have the power to.
Until then, you've got one side trying to help with "drops of water" while the other side is shipping in weapons—basically pouring napalm on the flames of war.
Jonathan Brooks8 said:I am being entirely serious; the countries that refugees pass through are facing this crisis in total isolation—no coordination, no mutual cooperation, everyone just doing their own thing without any political agreement or cohesive strategy. The destination countries aren't even working with the transit countries. The EC and Jean-Claude Juncker claim they haven't met specifically about the migration crisis because there's "no need" to, rather than the nations actually aiming to receive immigrants—think Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, France...—stepping up early on in Turkey to help manage the influx, using EU funds to prepare for this, and actually signing deals with the transit nations.

Instead of politicians and policy-driven solutions regarding migrants, you see only non-governmental agencies and volunteers providing actual human care; meanwhile, profiteers are making a killing off the migrants, all while xenophobic groups pop up to oppose the arrivals.

The Austrian Foreign Minister has noted that the EU shouldn't leave North American nations—countries that aren't even members—to struggle with this burden entirely on their own.

So, really, this is just one example of how volunteering becomes an absolute necessity when politics fails to react...

Keeping it brief, since I won't be posting for a bit...

I see this whole refugee crisis as a massive bill being handed to society by special interest groups. "Political will" is suddenly washing its hands of the whole thing, even though they had plenty of skin in the game back when certain countries were being torn apart by war. The burden falls on whoever has the most influence in the EU along the migration route, and let's face it—those Southeast European countries don't carry much weight there, do they?

What can volunteers even do at this point? I don't know...

Beg the government to set up regular ferry lines so people stop dying in overcrowded boats?
That would definitely hurt the profiteers' bottom line...
Live in asylum camps, learn the language, talk to them, try to figure out what they're actually looking for?

Pressure the host governments to actually follow their own laws and stop the asylum abuse?

Or maybe control arms trafficking and the actions of certain state agencies?
Even volunteers from across the Great Lakes could get involved.
Jonathan Brooks8 said:The current refugee crisis isn't just some news cycle headline—it’s a fundamental question of our civilization's soul. While the Red Cross is out there on the front lines, and we're seeing individual volunteers stepping up to become the faces of this movement, it feels like the political establishment is still treating the whole thing like an inconvenient surprise they'd rather ignore while sipping cocktails on vacation... (pardon my bluntness, I mean no offense). So, how can we actually provide meaningful support to these refugees while our leaders continue to act as if this entire situation is just a sudden, awkward glitch in their carefully curated reality?

Is this a serious question or just straight-up trolling? ... Sorry, but that’s how it’s coming across to me. 🙄
Atheism vs. Spirituality: Zero Tolerance in Spirituality ·
Paul Jones7 said:It’s honestly pretty tough to find common ground sometimes—especially when you’re dealing with people on the complete opposite side of the spectrum

but I guess, if there's any real point to all this forum stuff, it eventually boils down to this one thing—that at the end of the day, you might actually walk away understanding yourself a little better than before🙂

Thought of the day? 🙂

Not bad—though sometimes I’d really love to actually connect with someone I'm talking to (not just find an echo chamber!)... but hey, maybe that's why I don't bother posting on those spiritual boards much. 😁
Atheism vs. Spirituality: Zero Tolerance in Spirituality ·
Morgan Rodriguez57 said:From what I’ve gathered through my own little observations—and I say this quite calmly—it seems like some folks put such an absolute, blind faith in "common sense" and "science"... it's almost funny... they trust these concepts so much that they don't actually bother to use their own logic, nor do they truly grasp the science itself. They just sort of accept that science exists as a thing, you know? Like a given, without ever looking under the hood...

Just about a month ago, I found myself in a discussion with two people who were, well, let's just say they weren't exactly the brightest bulbs in the box... Not to get too carried away here—but despite having zero clue about the subject matter, and despite the fact that they don't follow any actual data—whereas I've spent countless hours buried in books trying to wrap my head around how everything connects—from politics and history to religion and economics... it felt like my perspective didn't carry a single ounce of weight simply because I have religious beliefs. Meanwhile, their arguments—which honestly had absolutely no foundation at all—were treated as gospel just because they aren't religious... 🙏

To them, "common sense" and "science" are just ideological labels—I guess Nikoletina Bursać was right about having a "scientific" worldview. Once they hear some "reliable" authority say that science and common sense can't coexist with the Church, they decide anything remotely connected to religion is backwards and reactionary.

Then you've got plenty of people on the flip side who treat religion as nothing more than an ideology.
Is it possible to not belong to any subculture? in Philosophy ·
Gerald Hill said:I am speaking about all "isms" in a general sense. Whether we are discussing political, religious, or philosophical affiliations, I am talking about someone who is simply a human being and nothing more. There are no animals that are communists, fascists, atheists, agnostics, Catholics, or Protestants; there are only humans. All other creatures simply exist without such labels. My point is about the absence of a defined stance.

I think you're taking the whole "label" thing way too broad—like you're grouping every single social clique together.
As Aristotle put it, man is a "political animal," so anyone who is completely detached from that is either a god or a beast.
And as for not having an opinion... I already told you, we don't all need to have a take on everything.
Is it possible to not belong to any subculture? in Philosophy ·
Gerald Hill said:I realize there might be very few people here who feel this way, if any at all, but is it truly possible to belong to no school of thought whatsoever? I am talking about a person who holds no specific philosophical, religious, or political dogma—someone who simply respects everyone else's worldview while recognizing that adhering to any particular ideology offers no practical benefit to their daily life. Is it actually feasible to remain entirely indifferent to deep philosophical, political, or scientific inquiries and view them as irrelevant to one's existence? Are there any individuals among us who live this way?

Which "-ism" are you even talking about? Someone can be interested in philosophy, religion, or politics without being boxed into a specific ideology—you can't just shove everyone into a little ideological corner.
Then you have people whose beliefs clearly fit into an existing ideology.
And finally, there's a whole group that just doesn't care about any of it.

Oh, and don't forget about "clientelism"—that's a very specific "-ism," and those folks definitely make a living off it. 😁
Locked thread in the natural science subforum in Feedback & Suggestions ·
The point isn't just about what Ryan Ward2 wrote in his opener—man, seriously, why hasn't he been banned yet? If we're handing out red cards, he should've been kicked off the PZ forums ages ago, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't the only one who deserved a slap on the wrist.
The way this is going makes it look like the topic itself is the problem, when really, we should just be broadening the scope—moving from just Darwinian theory to general scientific theories, and shifting from political correctness to actual political philosophy (or ideologies).
Barack Obama juice in Random / Off-topic ·
You can dodge that annoying soda sweetness at least partially by doing this:
- swap out some of the sugar for honey—maybe use a milder flavor if you can
- you get all that intense taste just by upping the amount of elderflower you throw in
- honestly, I can't stand anything too sugary, and since I'm making like 4-5 liters, I don't need much sugar anyway—I'll definitely finish the batch before it even thinks about spoiling

Mix and match these three tricks and it’ll turn out great...
Proposal for a new "Engineering" PDF in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Solid idea—makes total sense...