Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"On average, 97% of people who are transgender are happy with their decision to transition. Only ~3% of trans people experience some form of regret, but may not detransition. These detransition statistics are for 2022."
There is a theory that gender identity is a spectrum whether or not people acknowledge it to themselves. Many North American indigenous tribes have long acknowledged what they call "two-spirit" people. Genderfluid people likely existed throughout history. The reason why more are willing to come out now may be because, among other reasons, that gays and lesbians, and their openness with gender expression, are relatively more accepted these days.
Regarding mass immigration:
Some may see this as a radical thought...but except for those who have considerable indigenous heritage - and I'd leave it to Native tribes to determine what percent that should be - most of us are effectively "illegal", undocumented or what have you. (Perhaps there are some who could claim asylum several generations removed, e.g. Blacks, Asians/Pacific Islanders, post-WWII Italian/German immigrants.) I would posit that those coming from due south with their higher level of indigenous heritage have less degrees of separation and therefore more of a claim than those whose ancestors imposed themselves on what we now call the Americas. We look at this issue from a presumptuous Eurocentric perspective.
Beyond the US and, to a slightly lesser degree Canada, marshalling the resources that diverted a disproportionate amount of wealth north of the Rio Grande, American foreign policy has helped to destabilize many of the countries whose citizens flee for both safety and work. I will concede that promising economic support to these countries in exchange for rooting out corruption and promoting democratic procedures is a gamble. So may treating illegal drug use as a health crisis rather than a criminal act. But they may better investments in the long run than what we are doing now.
I am glad that this thread exists so that I can plunk this thought down here. Speaking of the gender stuff, last night I watched a movie called Orlando which is free on the Roku Channel. I had been meaning to get to it, because I like Tilda Swinton and a friend told me that if I like Tilda, I need to watch Orlando.
All I have to say is, if a trans person watches this movie they will probably come away from it thinking, "Yes! Exactly! Why is this so hard for everyone to understand??"
And if someone who is not trans, and who has no contact with trans people and who is perhaps at least iffy on the subject, watches this movie, they will come away from it saying, "WTF did I just watch??"
It was made in 1993 though, which feels rather "before its time," I gotta say.
Also, someone replied to me earlier upthread and stated that "the left" does not want to vet immigrants, that "the left" just wants to let them run wild over the open border and supposedly (but not actually) vet them later. And one point I have to raise a finger and ask... Do you think that the decision makers, the elected and appointed people who make the rules, are in lockstep in their thinking, with the voters and regular people who are "on the left?" I really think we need to be careful about that when we talk about "the left" or "the right." Because most PEOPLE on "the left," myself included, if you ask us, we'll tell you that yes, hell yes, we want people vetted before they are turned loose in the country.
Also to the idea that they need to assimilate and learn English quickly... I can't really agree on that one. I mean, sure, they speak Spanish because the Spanish colonized them (or Portuguese or something else, in fact) but no, I do not accept that white, English speaking Americans are the true Americans and everyone else needs to adapt to us. I think that people who speak other languages who even pick up rudimentary English (jacked up stupid language that it is, with more nonsense rules than any other as far as I know)...they are way out ahead of ME, a typical American Euro-mutt who only speaks one language. I'm not going to act like I am superior, or like the descendants of the conquered indigenous need to bend over backwards to make my life easy and accommodate my comfort, by not speaking a language in my hearing that I do not understand. I mean, I don't have to beat myself up with guilt about it, but I could keep in mind that their ancestors were here a long time before mine were, at a minimum, and not treat them all like "foreigners"...WE are the invaders. Not them. And it was not such a very long, long time ago that it's fine to just sweep it aside like it all never happened. It was an eye-blink ago to the thousands of years of what came before. America is a hell of a young country.
I have to say that because if some on the left don't feel strongly enough about vetting people who want to cross our borders, some on the right would look a Native in the eye and tell him to go back to where he came from because of the color of his skin. Which would almost be hilarious, except that it actually has happened.
People do make (wise) decisions based on things other than political affiliation
I'd like to talk about Latino sex offenders as it is an issue that many in our culture don't clearly understand. The number of Latino sex offenders in the U.S. is out of proportion to the percentage of white offenders. And it is growing. I don't know where they stand in regard to other races. I didn't know the percentage was so high until I accidently bumped into a county survey and was shocked to see that the lion's share of sex offenders in our county were Latinos.
Now, I'm not talking about the kind of rapist who chooses to violently rape women. We all know every culture has a percentage of those and they are deliberately criminal. But there is another kind of sex criminal entering the country and I'd like to comment on them.
It's a serious cultural dissonance. With Latinos there are at least two cultural reasons for this - the commonality of taking brides during their early teens and the cultural tradition of machismo, that a woman is subject to the wishes of her man who is the dominant partner in the family.
They migrate here and practice habits which wouldn't have been of comment in the backwoods communities of their countries but have been made illegal here.
It's tragic for all involved. The young women are exposed to a new way of life with more choices and more freedom and rightfully want the same for themselves. Often this will result in jail and a criminal record for the men and rehabilitation for the women. And, of course, a long-time American family will respond to the issue as a sex offense.
We now have services to help these women who have been in what modern society determines are abusive environments to gain freedom from male control. The price is high for all members of the family, but it goes along with adjusting to a new culture. It's a painful adjustment to a new way of life and will probably take more than a couple of generations. It is changing in Mexico also but not very fast in the rural areas.
I have many friends in Mexico and when I visit I've been confronted with, "Americans hate us." I think it's important to clarify. Half the world wants to come here. I consider all who are willing to follow the laws and work at being productive citizens should be welcomed, regardless of their first culture. But what county wouldn't be serious about monitoring the legal inclinations of new citizens?
Beyond the US and, to a slightly lesser degree Canada, marshalling the resources that diverted a disproportionate amount of wealth north of the Rio Grande, American foreign policy has helped to destabilize many of the countries whose citizens flee for both safety and work. I will concede that promising economic support to these countries in exchange for rooting out corruption and promoting democratic procedures is a gamble. So may treating illegal drug use as a health crisis rather than a criminal act. But they may better investments in the long run than what we are doing now.
Is it a solution, then, to destroy well-functioning societies north of the Rio Grande? Keep in mind, pre-Columbian societies were not "Paradise Lost."
If you wanted to have a trial concerning the massacre of the Native Americans, or place blame, you would need to consider the smallpox virus, see 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles C. Mann. When Hernando de Soto hit the mainland of Florida in or about 1539, he left after exploring. His pigs and other animals remained. Those animals were disease vectors, spreading smallpox, diphtheria and other diseases against which the Native Americans lacked any immunity. Death rates throughout the continent are estimated at 90-98%, most having died before ever laying eyes on a white man. The remaining societies were demoralized and unorganized. Clearly, you don't reserve 100% of a continent for 2%-10% of the people. Further, the Native Americans, before the arrival of smallpox, regularly displaced and slaughtered each other. Read War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage by Lawrence H. Keeley. The natives were not noble savages or particularly angelic.
I know, many who are not willing to sacrifice of themselves can self-righteously say "U.S. bad, indigenous (whatever that is) good."
I am glad that this thread exists so that I can plunk this thought down here. Speaking of the gender stuff, last night I watched a movie called Orlando which is free on the Roku Channel. I had been meaning to get to it, because I like Tilda Swinton and a friend told me that if I like Tilda, I need to watch Orlando.
All I have to say is, if a trans person watches this movie they will probably come away from it thinking, "Yes! Exactly! Why is this so hard for everyone to understand??"
And if someone who is not trans, and who has no contact with trans people and who is perhaps at least iffy on the subject, watches this movie, they will come away from it saying, "WTF did I just watch??"
It was made in 1993 though, which feels rather "before its time," I gotta say.
Also, someone replied to me earlier upthread and stated that "the left" does not want to vet immigrants, that "the left" just wants to let them run wild over the open border and supposedly (but not actually) vet them later. And one point I have to raise a finger and ask... Do you think that the decision makers, the elected and appointed people who make the rules, are in lockstep in their thinking, with the voters and regular people who are "on the left?" I really think we need to be careful about that when we talk about "the left" or "the right." Because most PEOPLE on "the left," myself included, if you ask us, we'll tell you that yes, hell yes, we want people vetted before they are turned loose in the country.
Also to the idea that they need to assimilate and learn English quickly... I can't really agree on that one. I mean, sure, they speak Spanish because the Spanish colonized them (or Portuguese or something else, in fact) but no, I do not accept that white, English speaking Americans are the true Americans and everyone else needs to adapt to us. I think that people who speak other languages who even pick up rudimentary English (jacked up stupid language that it is, with more nonsense rules than any other as far as I know)...they are way out ahead of ME, a typical American Euro-mutt who only speaks one language. I'm not going to act like I am superior, or like the descendants of the conquered indigenous need to bend over backwards to make my life easy and accommodate my comfort, by not speaking a language in my hearing that I do not understand. I mean, I don't have to beat myself up with guilt about it, but I could keep in mind that their ancestors were here a long time before mine were, at a minimum, and not treat them all like "foreigners"...WE are the invaders. Not them. And it was not such a very long, long time ago that it's fine to just sweep it aside like it all never happened. It was an eye-blink ago to the thousands of years of what came before. America is a hell of a young country.
I have to say that because if some on the left don't feel strongly enough about vetting people who want to cross our borders, some on the right would look a Native in the eye and tell him to go back to where he came from because of the color of his skin. Which would almost be hilarious, except that it actually has happened.
Really good post. I haven't seen this movie. I'll will check it out.
"Euromut" descendant of immigrants who came there a very long time ago. The earliest spoke English, the later ones came here as non-English speakers. As with you, I only speak English. The first Americans spoke Native American languages and Spanish. Yes, parts Western United States were taken by the US from Mexico. WE ARE the INVADERS.
Like Sonic Spork, I lean left, and like all of my friends, I want to to open the US to immigrants, BUT I want them to be vetted thoroughly. The last time we had a mass immigration, at the turn of the last century, the immigrants came through Ellis Island, which we built in order to receive and vet immigrants. They were given medical examinations, and some did not pass. Anyone with an infectious disease was sent back to their country of origin. Thet were asked if they were anarchists, criminals, and they were evaluated for mental illness. Back then, there were no computers, and many of the future Americans were peasants, and subsistence farmers. They worked to feed their families. Many were leaving situations where they were the subjects of religious persecution, most had lived in poverty back home. They had to take the person's word for it.
NO - they did not arrive with passports, they were given identification cards at Ellis Island, that is it.
We should do what was done over 100years ago, only this tim, with computers, we will be allowing them to enter the country with more information than we had with Ellis Island.
Whenever there is a change in this country - when non-English people arrived, when Catholics and Jews were arrived, when the first Roman Catholic was elected president, when the first person of African descent was elected, These events caused a "moral panic". When Gay people married? there was outrage in the US, I Never understood that - They want to marry each other - NOT YOU.
America is diverse, we were not all raised in religions that are against Gay Marriage or abortion were not spoken about in church circles.
There are also many Americans who do not follow any religion at all,
We have separation of church and state here,
It's my hope that this current moral panic leaves, and we can find solution as we move forward to a more compassionate and inclusive country.
Current policies must not be taken as unique issues, they are all related. the bottom line, rational explanation each issue has in common, is destabilization of society.
Open borders is a prime example. The way to destabilize a society is to flood the culture, country with with a different culture. Borders and migration policies are designed to meter immigrants into that culture and blend in norms and behaviors specific to the target country. Stability is the cornerstone of a safe and improving QOL.
For instance, when the foundation of a country's economy is destroyed, the cascading effect is catastrophic. And the downstream carnage which results is not unexpected, it is intentional. So has happened with the destruction of the energy industry in the US. Inflation, short supply, skyrocketing gas and energy prices covered by blatant lies. when lied to your face with no recourse to challenge the lies, frustration heightens.
Judging the past by today's fleeting, Taliban like behavior of destroying all symbols, literature and language of a conquered enemy is another way to divide the country. Calls to rewrite history by high level government persons are a Go signal to tear down revered and prominent statues of the culture under attack. Intentionally divisive and engenders hate and violence.
Perspective is the enemy of the oppressor and when they own the media, the democracy dies.
Stability of society is protected by the media watchdog overseeing government policies and officials. The silence of the media in favor of an authoritarian government is critical to the existence of that government.
When it is clear the media has abandoned the people, it is generally too late to save the country.
Current policies must not be taken as unique issues, they are all related. the bottom line, rational explanation each issue has in common, is destabilization of society.
Open borders is a prime example. The way to destabilize a society is to flood the culture, country with with a different culture. Borders and migration policies are designed to meter immigrants into that culture and blend in norms and behaviors specific to the target country. Stability is the cornerstone of a safe and improving QOL.
Great post!
I hope you are wrong about the destabilizing impact of immigration being deliberate but I strongly suspect you are right on the money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer
For instance, when the foundation of a country's economy is destroyed, the cascading effect is catastrophic. And the downstream carnage which results is not unexpected, it is intentional. So has happened with the destruction of the energy industry in the US. Inflation, short supply, skyrocketing gas and energy prices covered by blatant lies. when lied to your face with no recourse to challenge the lies, frustration heightens.
Here, though, they try to cover the impact with gas tax "holidays" which are common in "blue" states. I hope their believe that renewables will take over is merely naive and stupid. However, I really think that what they oppose (not for themselves obviously) is modern society, that includes high consumption of material goods. I posed this very issue at the Thanksgiving table, and received the response "well, we can't go on this way." I asked "why" and I received no satisfactory answers. When I said "I want to put the keys into my car (in the NYC area) and just come up here (to Vermont) and not even think about it, one of them said "I'm sure the technology will improve." It was obviously a vacuous answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer
Judging the past by today's fleeting, Taliban like behavior of destroying all symbols, literature and language of a conquered enemy is another way to divide the country. Calls to rewrite history by high level government persons are a Go signal to tear down revered and prominent statues of the culture under attack. Intentionally divisive and engenders hate and violence.
Absolutely right. There is no acknowledgement that the builders of society can be flawed, but they still built. Theodore Roosevelt was not perfect but still deserves a statue in his honor by, along with Gifford Pinchot, largely birthing the modern environmental movement.
I am going to respond to both Sheena's and Sonic Spork's points here, since there were similarities I mean no disrespect but it will make my response easier to follow than if I have multiple "stripes" in the post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheena12
"Euromut" descendant of immigrants who came there a very long time ago. The earliest spoke English, the later ones came here as non-English speakers. As with you, I only speak English. The first Americans spoke Native American languages and Spanish. Yes, parts Western United States were taken by the US from Mexico. WE ARE the INVADERS.
Migration of humans has been an age-old phenomena. The book Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors by Nicholas Wade describes how soon after man's birth man starting migrating first to Asia, then Australia and then some backing and filling towards Europe. This is not new. I think I understand why a certain political element attacks the migration of white man to the Americas (and Australia) and the Jews back to the Holy Land but sees no difficulty in the inter-tribal slaughters in the Americas detailed in War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage by Lawrence H. Keeley, or for that matter the Barbarian invasions of Rome or the Huns' invasion of Europe. The natural tendency is for advanced societies to override and displace primitive ones, but for some reason the destabilizing elements I decry in the OP and elsewhere would prefer a "cave-man" type dystopia where our only impact on the environment is to kill animals for food and deposit human waste outside our homes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheena12
Like Sonic Spork, I lean left, and like all of my friends, I want to to open the US to immigrants, BUT I want them to be vetted thoroughly. The last time we had a mass immigration, at the turn of the last century, the immigrants came through Ellis Island, which we built in order to receive and vet immigrants. They were given medical examinations, and some did not pass. Anyone with an infectious disease was sent back to their country of origin. They were asked if they were anarchists, criminals, and they were evaluated for mental illness.
In those cases, repatriation/deportation was immediate. Now, they are handed an appearance date before a judge for which a large proportion fail to appear, and even fewer appear for multiple adjournments or the ultimate asylum hearing or to apply legally for immigration. So, even back in the "Ellis Island" days there was some vetting. I doubt that you would agree to restore that process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheena12
Back then, there were no computers, and many of the future Americans were peasants, and subsistence farmers. They worked to feed their families. Many were leaving situations where they were the subjects of religious persecution, most had lived in poverty back home. They had to take the person's word for it. NO - they did not arrive with passports, they were given identification cards at Ellis Island, that is it.
And they and/or learned English so that their descendants would not be perpetually an island within society. Now, the "community leaders" want to keep their charges or followers on the outside, mostly to benefit them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheena12
We should do what was done over 100years ago, only this tim, with computers, we will be allowing them to enter the country with more information than we had with Ellis Island.
I agree but I suspect you or at least a fair number of others would insist that they have hearings and the right of appeal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheena12
Whenever there is a change in this country - when non-English people arrived, when Catholics and Jews were arrived, when the first Roman Catholic was elected president, when the first person of African descent was elected, These events caused a "moral panic". When Gay people married? there was outrage in the US, I Never understood that - They want to marry each other - NOT YOU.
I was never "morally outraged" by any of those events. I have no problem, for example, with people's arrival. However, I want the arrivals to join the system. In Judaism we have a phrase for this (link in text); Dina de-Malkhuta Dina. This means that with certain exceptions, we bind ourselves to the law of the land. We had to exist in non-Jewish societies and could not reasonably expect (alternate side of the street parking and a few other accommodations excepted) that society would tolerate unacceptable conduct.
I will next intersperse part of "Lodestar's" post to better explain what I mean. To avoid confusion I will double-indent:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodestar
But there is another kind of sex criminal entering the country and I'd like to comment on them.
It's a serious cultural dissonance. With Latinos there are at least two cultural reasons for this - the commonality of taking brides during their early teens and the cultural tradition of machismo, that a woman is subject to the wishes of her man who is the dominant partner in the family.
They migrate here and practice habits which wouldn't have been of comment in the backwoods communities of their countries but have been made illegal here.
It's tragic for all involved. The young women are exposed to a new way of life with more choices and more freedom and rightfully want the same for themselves. Often this will result in jail and a criminal record for the men and rehabilitation for the women. And, of course, a long-time American family will respond to the issue as a sex offense.
That is a great point. I had heard of "machismo" and did not understand extent of the problem. I think it is very important for people that are here to obey the law. That is why I oppose "de-carceration" even though "incarceration" has a disparate racial and ethnic impact. I think the minority in society needs to conform to the majority.
Now, back to Sheena.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheena12
America is diverse, we were not all raised in religions that are against Gay Marriage or abortion were not spoken about in church circles.
There are also many Americans who do not follow any religion at all,
We have separation of church and state here,
It's my hope that this current moral panic leaves, and we can find solution as we move forward to a more compassionate and inclusive country.
Marriage should not be mixed in with other issues. We have marriage to facilitate the orderly raising, and in the event of separation or divorce placement of children. As for abortion, I am for it, to a point. I would be disgusted with an abortion from the delivery table as would most. There is some undefined point where "abortion" approaches murder. I think the Roe decision struck about the right balance, but that should have been by legislation, not by nine unelected and unaccountable SCOTUS judges.
I was never "morally outraged" by any of those events. I have no problem, for example, with people's arrival. However, I want the arrivals to join the system. In Judaism we have a phrase for this (link in text); Dina de-Malkhuta Dina. This means that with certain exceptions, we bind ourselves to the law of the land. We had to exist in non-Jewish societies and could not reasonably expect (alternate side of the street parking and a few other accommodations excepted) that society would tolerate unacceptable conduct.
Ideally, all new arrivals to this country should enter in accordance with this country's immigration laws. But then I'm reminded of the passengers on the ship St. Louis in 1939, and I wonder how many desperate immigrants petitioning to enter our country as refugees are turned away to meet similar fates as those on that ship.
You mentioned "certain exceptions" regarding the Jewish principle of dina demalkhuta dina, and I think it's important to note these exceptions here (quoted from the link you provided):
"The halakhic authorities did not accept every law and every kingdom for the purpose of applying the principle dina demalkhuta dina and a series of conditions and qualifications were established... Some halakhists affirm that the laws of the kingdom must be recognized but not 'non-Jewish ways.'... According to some halakhists the law of the state is binding only when it does not oppose Torah law; i.e., only when it relates to matters not explicitly dealt with in the Torah."
While (to the best of my knowledge), I'm pretty certain that immigration laws aren't dealt with in the Torah, there are some other things which I feel justify being against totally "joining the system."
One current example deals with SCOTUS's recent ruling on abortion, and subsequent anti-abortion laws enacted by various states. This has already been discussed on this forum so, suffice to say, not all Jews or halachic authorities are in agreement with the Christian fundamentalist stand that the potential life of a zygote, embryo, or fetus supersedes the life (including physical and mental well-being) of the impregnated woman.
I could bring up additional examples from our Christian-centrist society which have affected not only those of the Jewish faith but also those who subscribe to no religion at all, but I think this is enough for now.
Is it a solution, then, to destroy well-functioning societies north of the Rio Grande? Keep in mind, pre-Columbian societies were not "Paradise Lost."
I offered two solutions which you include in quoting me. I also acknowledged that, at best, those solutions would be neither easy nor quick.
Quote:
If you wanted to have a trial concerning the massacre of the Native Americans, or place blame, you would need to consider the smallpox virus, see 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles C. Mann. When Hernando de Soto hit the mainland of Florida in or about 1539, he left after exploring. His pigs and other animals remained. Those animals were disease vectors, spreading smallpox, diphtheria and other diseases against which the Native Americans lacked any immunity. Death rates throughout the continent are estimated at 90-98%, most having died before ever laying eyes on a white man. The remaining societies were demoralized and unorganized. Clearly, you don't reserve 100% of a continent for 2%-10% of the people. Further, the Native Americans, before the arrival of smallpox, regularly displaced and slaughtered each other. Read War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage by Lawrence H. Keeley.
If you're implying that Spain holds a disproportionate responsibility for the loss of indigenous lives due to non-native species being introduced - notwithstanding that the English and French also did so later - then you might have a good case.
That does not exclude Europeans from later overrunning indigenous people and, especially in the case of the US, offering false treaties that were later broken or never fulfilled.
Quote:
The natives were not noble savages or particularly angelic.
Obviously neither were the Europeans.
Quote:
I know, many who are not willing to sacrifice of themselves can self-righteously say "U.S. bad, indigenous (whatever that is) good."
It was one thing for indigenous people here to fight among themselves to determine who boundaries and rules. It's another for Europeans to impose their own upon them. Indigenous people in the Americas have not been made whole. It will take more than casino licenses - which not all tribal nations want - to accomplish that goal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
