this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2025
342 points (96.7% liked)

No Stupid Questions

43319 readers
707 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

Historically, I'm quite certain that the "small" people (e.g. peasants, and such) had always had incredibly right-wing views, including tribalism (we're better than anyone else, for no reason, we just are), "hard-work" ethics, who doesn't work doesn't deserve to eat, and such.

The landlords couldn't care less about immigration. As long as the immigrants pay their taxes, the landlord is happy. Why would they bother?

It's the peasants who see their land occupied (sothat their own land's relative share decreases) who get furious at the foreigners who take their jobs and eat their food, while also possibly bringing infectious diseases and an inferior way of life.

[–] __siru__@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 10 hours ago

They have always been anti-immigrant. Gor the longest time they simply tolerated it, but no more.

As for the the statue of liberty, a, it was built by the French not Americans, b, I can also happily say that I pride myself on being a great person, while in truth being a terrible peraon.

[–] InfiniteHench@lemmy.world 7 points 18 hours ago

When the rich figured out that our innate tribalism could be weaponized to distract us from their abuse, lawlessness, and greed.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Sigmund Freud's work, and those who built upon it after his death, proved humans are very very very very easy on a large sample size to mislead.

Theres even a phrase "you are not immune to propaganda."

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The US has always had an anti-immigrant streak. Whoever the last group are they are unhappy with the next group. The Irish were not welcome, except by Tammany Hall, then the Italians were suspect. The Chinese have always been seen as suspicious and we all know what happened to the Japanese in WW2. Interestingly those of German descent haven't been suspect, probably because they formed a large chunk of the US (PA, OH) and Eisenhower had German ancestry.

I doubt any country has never had an issue with someone seen as outsiders.

[–] Yaky@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

DOJ did denaturalize many members of the German American Bund due to their ties with the Nazi party.

Source: You Are Not American by Amanda Frost, great book.

It's just super wrong all around.

https://ohiomemory.ohiohistory.org/archives/3673

Because Google sucks now that's the best source you're getting but people should at least be aware that the point of calling them "Huns" was like excluding Irish, Italians, Slavs, and Spaniards from "whiteness," a racial slur ultimately accusing them of having non-white ancestors.

Because racists are very stupid, the fact that the Anglo-Saxon conquests happened after the Hunnic conquests of what would become Germany and most of Europe for that matter never seemed to be worth thinking about.

[–] ChetManly@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

I mean they blare "brown man make your life bad" 24/7 on state tv

[–] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Once we stopped needing cheap labor to build the railroads and mine ore and occupy native lands and farm crops and roof houses and paint walls and run the cash register at the gas station. Actually we still need immigrants for some of that in order to sustain the level of growth required to fund our retirement plans and do the jobs that we would rather not do for wages that we would rather not work for. It looks like Republicans are hoping to fuel that growth internally through reproduction among existing citizens (under the theory that kids will work for lower wages), while the democrats want to rely on immigrants. That's my theory anyway.

The interesting thing is that the US economy (in fact, even the economy worldwide) is probably gonna face a steep decline in demand of human labor in the next few decades.

The reasons include the limits to growth (i.e. the economy can't grow anymore due to natural constraints, but growth is what causes the majority of demand for human labor) and automation and AI.

Having a higher number of people in the country when there's a low demand for human labor (a.k.a. few jobs) means higher unemployment numbers, and that in turn is more expensive for the country, because the people still need resources so the country has to pay out unemployment money if it wants to avoid revolts. Now, companies face higher taxation, and everyone is worse off. If people make fewer children today and there's less immigration, both companies and citizens will be better off in 20 years from now, because they face lower unemployment rates. This insight is relatively new (because until now, supply of human labor was the constraining factor for economic growth), but interesting.

[–] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A large majority of 'anti-immigrant' people wouldn't care if say, a French person immigrated into their country. When these people say immigrants, most of the time they mean people of color.

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

Yes. It's a polite way of being racist with most. And if they are asked, they say "I can't be racist [so and so] is my friend and they are black" or some dumb shit.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Oh we've been fighting about this for centuries

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 36 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Because their lives are shit and they need somebody to blame.

The right will accept a boot on their face as long as they've got a face on which to rest their own boot.

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

So it turns out that the Statue of Liberty never represented the opinions of all Americans to begin with

[–] diptchip@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Whenever hate can be used to divide the masses. We must be divided lest we decide that a system that protects unethically gained wealth is unethical, even if it protects ethically gained wealth.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 13 points 1 day ago (3 children)

The US is not anti immigrant.

There's a few greedy white people with lots of money who bought the media and the elections who are anti-immigrant.

Don't confuse policy with popular sentiment.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The vast majority of people who lean right are not individually as hateful as youtube and social media and most of the content algorithmically fed to us would have us believe.

Do they say horrible things around each other? Yes, they ramp up the rhetoric and make it seem like they're absolute super-villains at times... but what we really miss in all this is how shallow their values are. They are not complicated people. They go with the popular sentiment but are so comfortable living in a state of cognitive dissonance that they will work all day with a team of black and hispanic coworkers, get along great, consider them true, best friends... then go home and upvote the most racist shit you've ever seen on facebook because it makes them laugh. They simply cannot make comparisons or connections the way the other ~66% of the population does, so they don't see things like hypocrisy or inconsistency. They don't see larger pictures. They don't understand the concept of punching down.

As a group, they are our country's biggest problem, a menace, a scourge upon the Earth who are enabling the worst, most malicious people to engage in plans of oppression we haven't seen in a century.

But as individuals, we could reach almost each of them. They're stupid enough to believe whatever we tell them and we're afraid of them. The math is broken.

We have to get more social, we have to get more confrontational, we have to get less isolated.

I will get some rando lefties screaming at me that they don't want to "compromise with their oppressors" and that's fine. Don't. I'm not making you personally, and if you get that insinuation that I'm telling you personally to do something traumatic, you're part of the problem. For everyone else, I've changed the hearts of people with apparently "set in" bigotry simply by listening and talking to them. It's not jedi mind magic, it's just a skill that comes from engaging with people in real life.

[–] caltex777@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There are a few greedy people who figure out that no one will notice them picking folks pockets if they distract them with racism.

[–] Jack_Burton@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

Lyndon B. Johnson

[–] CH3DD4R_G0BL1N@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I get what you’re going for, but it’s hard to believe that when said billionaires’ propaganda campaign was so easily and eagerly adopted by the majority of one of our political party bases. Including some of our own family members who had never openly expressed such sentiments before.

Propaganda is powerful, but can it make you suddenly, deeply believe something you weren’t already secretly feeling?

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That is pretty much the point of propaganda. It takes advantage of people's psychology to manipulate them.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This. I recommend reading Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. Or, you could watch the movie

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

For sure, great book and movie!

[–] lemmyknow@lemmy.today 3 points 1 day ago

Maybe. Fictional stories can make you feel things, even though these stories aren't real. Just look at (fiction) movies, tv shows, books. If people can watch scary movies and get scared of fiction, maybe people can be made to be scared of other, real life people. Or worried, or whatever. Especially if maybe one doesn't know or doesn't have experience enough on the matter at hand.

[–] False@lemmy.world 173 points 2 days ago (9 children)

People hated immigrants DURING the time period you're thinking of. And it wasn't always a skin color thing either, the Irish were one of the big targets for a long time.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The concept of the white "race" was created by the acceptance of new nationalities into the fold in America and then dividing "us vs them" in a new way.

It bears some similarity to "Judeo-Christianity" so that we can draw the line between white people religion and everyone else.

[–] jqubed@lemmy.world 79 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Italians were also targeted. Being from a Catholic country was sometimes enough to get targeted. Always found it funny (Woody Allen marriage funny, not Woody Allen film funny) that the Protestants who came to what is now Massachusetts seeking “religious freedom” meant it only for themselves and drove out anyone who didn’t subscribe to their views.

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 26 points 2 days ago

You need to put it in context, many if not most of the denominations that came to America seeking religious freedom did so because continental Christians considered them extremists. So yes, they were seeking it only for themselves.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 21 points 2 days ago

General population was always anti immigrant but the ruling class was smart enough to understand they needed immigration to sustain the growth. What changed is that everyone got so dumb they don't know what's in their best interest anymore.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 100 points 2 days ago (12 children)

Everything can be summarized in one Chinese idiom (成语):
过河拆桥

Aka: Crossing the river, then dismantle the bridge.
You're already crossed it, why care about the bridge, you wont be using it anymore.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The Chinese have sort of lost their credibility on Politics and History, this last century.

I'm actually less inclined to listen to anything associated with them.

The only proverb I wanna hear out of China is "of the 36 stratagems, fleeing is best."

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Maybe you wanna hear this:
"上有政策,下有对策"
"When above has policy, below has countermeasures/resistance";

"above" meaning the government from the north, aka Beijing, and "below" means the people in the south, far away from the reaches of Beijing and therefore its policies are harder to be enacted upon. (But the "above" and "below" could also be reference to social status, because the emperor is "above" and us "peasants" are "below")

One of the best examples of this is the one child policy, anecdodally, my existence is from the direct violation of this policy. I don't know the whole story my mother and I aren't really on speaking terms these days, but she told me that she was supposed to get mandatory birth control (aka: sterilization) after giving birth to my older brother, but she lied to the authorities about it then she had another pregnancy (which was me), her hukou was in the village where she was born in, so she went into the city, and PRC isn't actually that centralized btw, they delegated a lot of law enforcement to the local government and I think because either jurisdictional issues or because the city has too many people and its easier to blend in, and therefore harder to find people, the government never found her and so I was born. (My mom said they weren't allowed to "terminate" me after my birth already happened) In the end, my parents only had to pay a fine, so I get to live. So that's one example of people just disobeying the government. (Honestly, I'm not entirely sure if I enjoy being alive, my parents are kind shitty and abusive, I much rather be reincarnated in Norway or something, but.... oh well... life doesn't let you choose 🤷‍♂️)

Or you know, the "great firewall" policy and VPNs as countermeasures against censorship. (I'm living in the US right now, so their firewall doesn't affect me lolz)

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 54 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Anti-immigrant sentiment is nearly universal across human cultures. It's a form of tribalism/fear of "the other". Just look at the backlash against arab refugees in Germany and Sweden, or the relatively recent tightening of Canada's immigration policy which used to be one of the most liberal in the world, for modern examples. Historic examples are even easier to find.

In general, we see more anti-immigrant sentiment in a country due to (a) the general population feeling insecure for some reason, (b) the perception that immigrants are immigrating faster than they are integrating.

When times are good and people feel secure, they look back at the past and say to themselves "look at how great our society is - we welcome people from all over the world, and now we have korean-mexican fusion. Yay, us!" But then when times get harder and people feel less secure, they say "these goddamned Nigerians keep coming here and taking all our video-editing and corporate accounting jobs! And they chew with their mouths open and have annoying laughs. And on top of that, their food isn't even that good. They're the worst, stop letting them in!"

Immigration is part of the mythologizing of the United States, but that doesn't except it from the great overarching trends of humanity.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

More broadly, it's all Tribalism.

You'll see it at many levels, not only towards the "outsiders" in nation terms (and examples are not only the anti-immigrant discourse but also in the discourse mainly blaming a country's problems on some "foreign power" or other, in both cases as if insiders didn't have vastly more power than such outsiders) but also at various other tribal levels (race, political party, region, city and even town in so-called "small town" environments).

The human tendency from Tribalism will turn even otherwise "good people" (but not very competent when it comes to introspection or having a strong keen sense of what is Just) into mindless "us vs them" drones who are easy to manipulate into blaming outsiders for the outcomes of the actions of insiders especially because they tend to believe any old bollocks from the "chiefs" of their tribe.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] lechekaflan@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The "fuck you, I got mine" mindset aka FYIGM or getting first dibs.

That is, kicking out the ladder or destroying bridges or cutting off reach so that no one else is getting what one has achieved. Like, "I got first, you're getting nothing!"

[–] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 59 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Within a single generation. My grandfather showed up here at 11 from Romania. Never became a US citizen. His son, my father, is a rabid anti-immigrant racist Fox News fan boy. It's disgusting. Ironically my mother's great-great grandmother lost her birthright citizenship by marrying a Finnish immigrant before the 14th amendment existed and had to reapply for her own citizenship along with her husband because women's status was tied to the male head of household at the time, and now he rants about how birthright citizenship is wrong, despite being the exact person who benefits from it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] devolution@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

America was never accommodating. The only thing immigrants had in common was hating black people.

[–] GnerphBaht@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] devolution@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

And how do you think the Irish became accepted?

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 32 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Here's a wiki article about the topic, because it would be a bit much to list it all out in a lemmy comment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_in_United_States_politics#History

The TLDR is though that its existed since before the country even became independent.

[–] flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago

Its called "ladder pulling".

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

One way the wealthy and powerful stay that way is by constantly promoting the narrative that it's those poorer than you who are your enemy, not the bosses who starve you both.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›