this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2025
1627 points (99.3% liked)

Science Memes

17449 readers
3108 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Soup@lemmy.world 66 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Not if you stayed, then it’s an investment. Money doesn’t just disappear when goes to poor people, they use it to buy things like food and stuff. It would only be a financial drain if you were sending that money back home.

The North American mind cannot comprehend the benefits of supporting the poor.

[–] slothrop@lemmy.ca 35 points 1 day ago (1 children)

UBI should be ubiquitous.

UBI = Universal Basic Income

[–] bigboitricky@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Amazing Americans say with their full chest this is socialism

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Perhaps strain would be a better word than drain - it would still be a short-mid term financial burden to take even a tiny fraction of the sane population from the US, it's a big country. Sure would be nice if it could be arranged though...

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Don’t worry, there aren’t that many sane people in the US. A lot of them are under the impression that they’re sane because they take the “balanced” position, though, which is to say that they just choose whatever’s in between fascism and barely progressive policy while they call themselves intelligent.

Frankly I’m not sure I’d want a bunch of people who cannot take accountability and who have such main-character energy they think that they would be allowed in while “bad” people wouldn’t be. We have enough problems with similar mindsets here in Canada and I really don’t want more of that except now they’re making it even harder to get away from our useless, conservative, Liberal(capital L) party.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

Ah yes - subjecting ideological refugeess to arbitrary purity tests, a true classic.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

Well that’s the thing, it wouldn’t be possible so the entire idea of “let us sane people come” is flawed from the start unless they truly believe that there should be a purity test and that they would pass it. Anyone who genuinely thinks that way should be immediately disqualified from immigrating based on their own idea of an ideological test.

“I’m different though and there should be actual, real laws to permit to do particular things!” is not the position of someone who considers their community at large to any particularly special degree. And to be clear I’m all for banning hate speech and stuff because that’s a specific banned behaviour and not a specific allowed behaviour, and we have evidence to show that it can be as harmful as any physically violent attack.

[–] klay1@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It would only be a financial drain if you were sending that money back home.

Only if you limit your view to your nation. 'Back home' across the border it would most likely also buy food etc. And that would be fine.

The real drain is the infinite black hole of the rich guys pockets. That is where all the money is. Don't blame people who send money to their loved ones to help, just because there is a border.

[–] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 day ago

And a hell of a good one. Adults will have already passed through education, so we would save on that part.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

I get that, the initial investment would be pretty significant.

I'm not against it of course, I just think it's necessary to understand the risks of any gamble.

[–] Kacarott@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago

This is correct, though the initial drain might still be too much if there was literally a big exodus all at once. Maybe if the refugees from the US distributed fairly evenly across the various countries it could work?