Healthcare and housing is a basic human necessity, it should be provided to everyone in a rich nation like ours and we should be meeting people’s basic needs at minimum.
While it is possible, your idea is not really plausible. I get what you’re thinking, but don’t mistake the correlation (that they are there relatively recently) as causation. Do you understand how blaming migrants for diseases is both a cop-out for the state (who receives taxes that provide health services (medical and sanitary))? How about how the fact blaming migrants for disease is proven throughout history to be a very dangerous road? It’s also at its core a racist idea, for one must make the assumption foreign migrants don’t know basic hygiene.
Clear your mind of these frivolous thoughts. No, it’s not migrants brother, it’s our crumbling country.
I never said anything at all about “blaming” them, even if they did happen to be found at the center of this horrible situation. There are a lot of people who while sitting in the comfort of their mansions are very free to make a lot of choices - e.g. the Texas governor who sent them there under false pretenses - but recent immigrants, especially those fleeing persecution at home, are typically those least free and capable to avoid e.g. scams from a scummy landlord who may receive rent money in return for substandard housing where rats might be found.
Also the article talked about a change after 2020, and the influx of immigrants who were promised to go one place but then somehow ended up in a city not of their choosing seems to fit that criteria of something different than the two decades prior to that where infection rates were low.
If it’s not clear, I’m not attacking you, or saying you are racist, or anything like that. I’m saying you must be careful with your wording because as you said just now, even if it were to be shown that the migrants were at the center, it wouldn’t be their fault.
The point I’m pushing (and you’re free to disagree as it is a subjective one) is simply that "the ACT of mentioning them as a source, even tangentially, is essentially blaming them as a source. I ask that you take the downvotes on your other comments as proof of my claim.
Looking at people replying to your comment shows that mentioning the migrants as “a possible source” is easily misconstrued by readers as “blame”. This is cuz language be how it do. You can’t predict how your words will be received, or what they will mean when they are.
People receiving those words in this thread are defending the migrants. But not everyone will receive those words the same.
People who fear migrants, or people who are scared of how the influx of migrants will affect their lives (and this must be taken into account with our scaremongering clickbaitey media sadly) will read those words and have a new excuse to fear migrants. That’s why in my opinion that bringing them up as a source at all is at best burying the lede, cuz no matter what it would be their treatment (or lack thereof) after coming to this country that would be to blame. So why bring them up at all? Article’s stupid choices aside, I’m talking to you, and trying to convince you there is no good purpose.
Yes, it is true - and extremely sad - that people on social media often immediately jump to the exact & opposite conclusion as is warranted from what I said, intentionally choosing to first misunderstand me and second to act upon that misunderstanding. But that is not fully on me, especially when I said one single sentence, that could have easily meant several possible things, and is thus at worst ambiguous and therefore neutral. You yourself did this, when you said that “your idea is not realy plausible” - i.e., not “if I understand you correctly, then I think that…”, but your idea, singular, as in one, single, interpretation, with none other possible. This is, if I am not mistaken, known as the “fallacy of extremes” where if X is true then surely there is no possible way that Y could not also be true, where Y is the absolute most extreme version of X, e.g. I dislike X, therefore X is like unto Hitler.
And this is why conservatives dominate the internet. With liberals choosing to eat their own, we have to watch out for attacks from both sides, rather than merely the opposition.
But if you truly were curious what I meant… you could have simply asked? Instead, you told, and despite being wrong, doubled down on it again, shifting the topic ever so slightly so as to maintain a righteous-sounding tone. Well, congrats I suppose, b/c your response did get the same number of upvotes with fewer downvotes (btw I never downvoted you) so… I guess you “won”? But let’s face facts shall we? We both lost here, by allowing the conversation to devolve to this level. I mean that somehow what is - or rather, at least might be - happening to immigrants has been entirely lost from our back-and-forth exchange.
Kudos for at least caring about their plight though, that much I do applaud. I hope you think about this exchange and how you can improve your end, and I will promise to do the same.
My man, i have failed you. I thought i was writing up something non confrontational and still offended. I apologize and will honestly have a hard look at how i come across.
Please read my comment again. I don’t mean to say you didn’t understand it, but do, or (reinterpret it anyway) adding this context:
I never considered that you meant the worst of what people heard, in fact i think your comments, taken in context, are completely fair and fine.
What i mean, and i did say it was fair to disagree, is something we do apparently disagree on, and it is thus:
intentionally choosing to first misunderstand me and second to act upon that misunderstanding. But that is not fully on me,
This is the antithesis of my point.
First, there is nothing intentional about misinterpretations. I, perhaps did misunderstand you, but right now i ama also saying you are unintentionally misunderstanding my point. To reiterate, it is (in my view) partly your responsibility to understand how your speech is interpreted by others.
I suspect it mostly infects homeless people.
I wonder how many are the migrants bussed there from Texas.
Edit: the article mentions that it is at least partly due to climate change as well.
Who knows, but obviously we should be getting those folks healthcare and a place to live.
Just like all the other Americans, right? (meme reference)
(but more seriously) The migrants are not used to that environment, and especially may fall into such traps more than people who know the area.
Healthcare and housing is a basic human necessity, it should be provided to everyone in a rich nation like ours and we should be meeting people’s basic needs at minimum.
While it is possible, your idea is not really plausible. I get what you’re thinking, but don’t mistake the correlation (that they are there relatively recently) as causation. Do you understand how blaming migrants for diseases is both a cop-out for the state (who receives taxes that provide health services (medical and sanitary))? How about how the fact blaming migrants for disease is proven throughout history to be a very dangerous road? It’s also at its core a racist idea, for one must make the assumption foreign migrants don’t know basic hygiene.
Clear your mind of these frivolous thoughts. No, it’s not migrants brother, it’s our crumbling country.
I never said anything at all about “blaming” them, even if they did happen to be found at the center of this horrible situation. There are a lot of people who while sitting in the comfort of their mansions are very free to make a lot of choices - e.g. the Texas governor who sent them there under false pretenses - but recent immigrants, especially those fleeing persecution at home, are typically those least free and capable to avoid e.g. scams from a scummy landlord who may receive rent money in return for substandard housing where rats might be found.
Also the article talked about a change after 2020, and the influx of immigrants who were promised to go one place but then somehow ended up in a city not of their choosing seems to fit that criteria of something different than the two decades prior to that where infection rates were low.
If it’s not clear, I’m not attacking you, or saying you are racist, or anything like that. I’m saying you must be careful with your wording because as you said just now, even if it were to be shown that the migrants were at the center, it wouldn’t be their fault.
The point I’m pushing (and you’re free to disagree as it is a subjective one) is simply that "the ACT of mentioning them as a source, even tangentially, is essentially blaming them as a source. I ask that you take the downvotes on your other comments as proof of my claim.
Looking at people replying to your comment shows that mentioning the migrants as “a possible source” is easily misconstrued by readers as “blame”. This is cuz language be how it do. You can’t predict how your words will be received, or what they will mean when they are.
People receiving those words in this thread are defending the migrants. But not everyone will receive those words the same.
People who fear migrants, or people who are scared of how the influx of migrants will affect their lives (and this must be taken into account with our scaremongering clickbaitey media sadly) will read those words and have a new excuse to fear migrants. That’s why in my opinion that bringing them up as a source at all is at best burying the lede, cuz no matter what it would be their treatment (or lack thereof) after coming to this country that would be to blame. So why bring them up at all? Article’s stupid choices aside, I’m talking to you, and trying to convince you there is no good purpose.
Yes, it is true - and extremely sad - that people on social media often immediately jump to the exact & opposite conclusion as is warranted from what I said, intentionally choosing to first misunderstand me and second to act upon that misunderstanding. But that is not fully on me, especially when I said one single sentence, that could have easily meant several possible things, and is thus at worst ambiguous and therefore neutral. You yourself did this, when you said that “your idea is not realy plausible” - i.e., not “if I understand you correctly, then I think that…”, but your idea, singular, as in one, single, interpretation, with none other possible. This is, if I am not mistaken, known as the “fallacy of extremes” where if X is true then surely there is no possible way that Y could not also be true, where Y is the absolute most extreme version of X, e.g. I dislike X, therefore X is like unto Hitler.
And this is why conservatives dominate the internet. With liberals choosing to eat their own, we have to watch out for attacks from both sides, rather than merely the opposition.
But if you truly were curious what I meant… you could have simply asked? Instead, you told, and despite being wrong, doubled down on it again, shifting the topic ever so slightly so as to maintain a righteous-sounding tone. Well, congrats I suppose, b/c your response did get the same number of upvotes with fewer downvotes (btw I never downvoted you) so… I guess you “won”? But let’s face facts shall we? We both lost here, by allowing the conversation to devolve to this level. I mean that somehow what is - or rather, at least might be - happening to immigrants has been entirely lost from our back-and-forth exchange.
Kudos for at least caring about their plight though, that much I do applaud. I hope you think about this exchange and how you can improve your end, and I will promise to do the same.
My man, i have failed you. I thought i was writing up something non confrontational and still offended. I apologize and will honestly have a hard look at how i come across.
Please read my comment again. I don’t mean to say you didn’t understand it, but do, or (reinterpret it anyway) adding this context:
I never considered that you meant the worst of what people heard, in fact i think your comments, taken in context, are completely fair and fine.
What i mean, and i did say it was fair to disagree, is something we do apparently disagree on, and it is thus:
This is the antithesis of my point.
First, there is nothing intentional about misinterpretations. I, perhaps did misunderstand you, but right now i ama also saying you are unintentionally misunderstanding my point. To reiterate, it is (in my view) partly your responsibility to understand how your speech is interpreted by others.
If you disagree, I’m all ears.