I agree. Maybe immigrating Europe or emigrating the US, but that does seem odd.

Good point

This is already common usage and I don’t see the need for any prefixes to the word.

As we’ve already seen in this thread, sometimes prefixes are needed to help establish the arrow of causation when people do migrate. Did they come to or leave from this or that country? Etc.

not the current english word.

Good thing language can change over time :)

What do you think it means for capitalism to win?

I mean, you’re right that Republicans taking away people’s rights should be news. It should be the topmost article on a newspaper.

Right under that though should be the news about how the supposed opposition party caved in to the Republicans by agreeing and voting in favor, thereby increasing the Republicans’ effective party size in the House.

Democratic representatives not representing their constituents should be news, but of course that news is as old as printing itself, much longer.

The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.

Irrelevant to this conversation.

Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.

By this logic, voter registration isn’t in the constitution, so you might be able to make the argument that it violates the 14th, 15th, 19th, and 24th amendments. Again, by this logic, regardless of if people have proper voting registration or any voting registration at all, they should still be able to vote anyways. The 4 Democrats mentioned in the above article pass a law against the above.

The state cannot diminish the rights of the people.

Tell that to the Republicans that introduced the above bill.

there can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights

What about the right to protest of UCLA students last April being violated because of false claims of anti-semitism, or the right to protest of Columbia students last March because of similar false claims? Did the US care about imposing sanctions or penalties on those people, or did they just detain and deport them instead?

a person cannot be compelled “to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.”

Again, tell that to Republicans that introduced the above bill.

Socialism doesn’t preclude the rehabilitation of America.

You and I agree on this. Abandoning capitalism doesn’t mean America needs to be destroyed, and adopting socialism doesn’t mean America can’t be rehabilitated.

I don’t think you’re following your own argument here.

Your original claim refuted the view of the Original Commenter (OC) who thought capitalism always wins, or seeks to concentrate wealth and therefore power in the hands of the few despite the needs of the many. I don’t want to assume what your views on capitalism are. Do you think we should keep it as an organization of the economy? Or are there better alternatives? Regulation on capitalism is not a solution imo. As we’ve seen with Trump and Bush, politicians can be bought out to represent corporate interests, and can install anti-regulation pundits to undermine progress.

Are you trying to say all socialist call for the destruction of America?

Quite the opposite. I’m saying I think you say all socialists call for the destruction of America because from how you’ve presented yourself, you don’t recognize the variation in political philosophy on the left. My first comment to you tried to illuminate this variation by refuting your worldview that authoritarian, tankie communism applies to all forms of leftist ideologies, when there are others that don’t include such levels of authority.

I’m not trying to argue. I’m trying to educate.

Pretty much sums up your entire philosophy and why no one takes tankies seriously.

Per your original comment, yes. Pro communist tankies aren’t the same as socialists. Wish more people wouldn’t make that equation.

It’d be like me saying that liberals are just MAGAts, when you clearly have different liberal factions like centrists and Social Democrats, and conservative factions like libertarians and fascists.

Another reason to go vegan:

Your butter won’t have shit in it!

Yeah when they started name calling, it was pretty much over for their argument.

Thanks for sticking up for yours and my point of view. There are many contradictions in our capitalist state, and it seems like people would rather be in denial of it than come to terms with it.

Rejecting capitalism doesn’t equate to accepting authoritarianism, although many people seem to equate socialism with its authoritative flavor automatically.

There are other possibilities, like basic socialism, anarchism, and communitarianism.

people were immigrating from Europe

The linguistically correct term her would be emigrating from Europe.

to the US

This is immigrating.

emigrating to Europe

This is immigration.

from the US

The word you’re looking for is emigration.

emigrating from Europe

You’re correct here.

to the US

Once again, immigration.

immigrating to Europe

This is the linguistically correct use of the term.

from the US

Proper word would be emigrating.

Easiest solution is to say migrating

Migration by itself doesn’t indicate whether you’re referring to domestic-only movement, where people migrate inside of a country, or domestic-to-foreign where they cross a border, or foreign-to-foreign movement.

It all depends on the boundary you set.

If your chosen boundary is Europe, people moving to Europe are immigrating there, and people moving from Europe are emigrating there.

If your chosen boundary is the US, immigration is moving to the US while emigration is moving from the US.

Since migration isn’t specific and can refer to any of the above cases, I prefer transmigration since “trans-” refers to “across” which I often interpret as “out from and in to”.

We don’t need to give up on prepositions in order to have more accurate language.

The majority of the population has departed from reality.

According to Ballotpedia, ~63.9% of the eligible US voting population (older than 18) turned out to vote, or ~155 mn people. This means ~36.1% didn’t turn out, or ~88 mn people out of the ~243 mn total population. In 2020, the turnout rate was ~66.6% or ~158 mn, meaning ~33.4% or ~79 mn didn’t vote out of the ~238 mn total population.

According again to Ballotpedia, ~77 mn voted R in 2024 (~49.8% of the voting population or ~31.8% of the total population), ~75 mn voted D (~48.3% of the voting population or ~30.8% of the total population), and ~3 mn voted 3rd party (~1.9% of the voting population or 1.2% of the total population).

In 2020, ~81 mn voted D (~51.3% of the voting population or ~34.2% of the total population), ~74 mn voted R (~46.9% of the voting population or ~31.2% of the total population), and ~3 mn voted 3rd party (1.8% of the voting population or ~1.2% of the total population).

You say majority, but clearly less than a third of adults in 2024 voted R.

I don’t think we can say why the other ~88 million didn’t vote. Sure, maybe some of them share a reality that diverges from the rest of the world. But we can speculate some other reasons too: maybe they were too apathetic because their party ran on issues not necessarily aligned to the views of their own, maybe they had to go to work to earn a paycheck, maybe they were turned away from the ballot box, maybe Joe Biden’s approval ratings tanked and upon dropping out of the race, many people on election day still thought he was running, maybe Kamala didn’t diverge enough away from Biden (or Republicans) to make a meaningful difference in voters’ eyes, and maybe some of them didn’t think women should be in office, with gender inequality still a prescient issue.

I liked Tim Walz’s analogy in response to the Democrats’ performance in 2024:

If a teacher teaches a subject, quizzes their class afterwards, and finds that less 100% of the class pass, the fault for that performance doesn’t lie with the kids. The fault lies with the teacher. The teacher needs to teach concepts in multiple ways using different pedagogical methods to activate as many kids as possible.

Politicians are the same for me. If people aren’t voting for you, a politician needs to speak to (and sometimes educate) the public in more ways than just one - and do so effectively.

Democrats dropped the ball this year. It still seems like they’re dropping the ball in Congress. We’ll see what the party does. I’d recommend they look to the progressive caucus with Bernie Sanders and AOC for the answer.

In my view, “migrate” according to Etymonline originates from the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root *mei which means “to change, go, move”.

I don’t believe this term refers to moving in or out of something, or any other preposition.

As we’ve been discussing in this post, immigrate and emigrate represent inverses of each other. It makes sense to look for logical ways to combine those.

I think the best prefix for this would be trans- for, according to Etymonline, this means “across, beyond, through, on the other side of; go beyond”. Specifically, I would refer to trans- as meaning “out from and in to”, which gives us the word “transmigrate”. Etymonline has a dictionary entry for “transmigration”.

It looks like Merriam-Webster, Oxford, and American Heritage dictionaries support “transmigrate” as an entry.

According to Etymonline,

Immigrate = in- “into, in, on, upon” from PIE root *en + migrare “to move” from PIE root *mei

Emigrate = assimilated form of ex- “out” from PIE root *eghs + migrare “to move” from PIE root *mei

So I guess to correct usage would be:

Immigrating to Europe/US

Emigrating from US/Europe

Trump received ~32% votes of eligible voters in the 2024 US General. So that statistic is pretty on the mark

That’s true, but the meme quite clearly says that Trump got 50.8%.

You’re wrong Lemming

Even if he had gone all in on manufacturing, it’s not like a supply network of industrial goods can be built in a day. Hell, it’s hard to build that in a 4-year term. Trump is virtue signalling while at the same time jeopardizing any chance America had of reshoring.

It’s honestly infuriating me how big projects needed to improve our infrastructure take years and years to complete, when from one administration to the next, those same projects can be cancelled.

It takes multiple presidencies to build something good, and it takes one to tear it all down.

I see now the benefits of China’s 5 year plans with how well organized they can control their economy.

Do you know the origins of that meme?

I thought I had already explained my idea of its origination, but according to Know Your Meme, the “soy” reference started around 2017 when information was hitting the mainstream about how soy contains phytoestrogens (isoflavones) [likely due to the rise in veganism at the time and people pushing for soy-based milk alternatives to cow milk and protein alternatives to meat] and people started to speculate (ignorantly) that consuming more soy makes people more feminine (but particularly less masculine). This may be true, but current it’s plausible due to a lack of sufficient evidence.

Know Your Meme then go on to explain how the term “soy” gets ascribed to a meme, “Soyjack”, and how his effeminate male persona gets compared to the ultimate masculine male persona “Chad”.

I take this meme to mostly refer to how some people in the world are changing their worldviews and behaviors to disform with the traditional patriarchy and order. People are upgrading their morality, whether that means abstaining or advocating for not consuming animals for food, or championing equity and minority rights like women’s, or touting the reality of the climate crisis and how we need to abandon fossil fuels in favor of clean energy.

This is in comparison to an older, narrower point of view that aims to regress worldviews and behaviors to a time when humanity dominated all other species on Earth (since we’re obviously better), neither women nor minorities had societal or individual powers or rights, or coal, natural gas, and oil are the best forms of energy because of how much they’ve contributed to humanity’s advancement.

People who subscribe to a worldview like the latter routinely would call people with the former worldview “soy”.

Are you sure you’re okay with repeating it yourself, even if it’s just meant as a joke?

I am fine using that term myself only towards regressives that abandon their worldviews or fail to practice their beliefs out of cowardice or a lack of conviction specifically because those people claim superiority over progressives. I’d use the term on people who would call others out for being more feminine (i.e. showing compassion, talking things out before forcing people to do things, etc.) but then show those same characteristics themselves, often without them recognizing their hypocrisy.

So, I called Microsoft soy in this case not because they enjoyed relatively progressive policies on human rights for example, but because they regressed on those beliefs by foresaking them and firing one of their employees who acted fully within the policy framework Microsoft themselves had created.

We should not settle with only one side of the societal spectrum name-calling and bullying the other for how they live. All ways of life are acceptable, so long as they don’t impede other’s. Tolerance is not a paradox. It is earned, in trust, as a social contract. If people prove to (routinely) breach that contract, then they deserve no respect in my eyes.

I have no issue with calling people or groups or companies or countries soy in that way.

No, sorry there’s a meme going around online where the English term “soy” (as in soybeans; this term was likely derived from veganism where many vegans drink soy milk instead of cow milk) is being prefixed to nouns or people to denote weakness or just to snark at people, kinda like how people would use snowflake in the past.

I was calling Microsoft “soy” in this way