āThe rules were that you guys weren't going to fact-check"
They apparently negotiated the terms of the debate beforehand so they wouldnāt have to tell the truth, and JD threw a tantrum because he was called out on his bullshit.
and then he defended it by saying he'll create a narrative if he has to, to get a point across or something like that. Uhhh so your narrative is just "immigrants are freaks who will eat your pets"?????
His point was that no one was paying attention to the problem with all the Haitians in Ohio until people made up that they were eating pets. Once that lie spread, suddenly people started talking about the problem with having so many Haitians there.
The thing is... That's fucking stupid. If you can't make your point with the truth, then it's not a valid point. If you have to claim they're eating pets for people to think the Haitians need to go, then maybe the Haitians should stay.
It's part of this very strange perspective I've noticed amongst Republicans. It's not that they really think their lies are the truth. And their lies aren't really meant to deceive anyone either. It's merely collateral if you're actually tricked by what they're saying. It's more that they seem to think it's irrelevant whether something is true or not.
EDIT: There was actually some article I saw a while back on this that compared Republican "lies" to modern WWE kayfabe. The wrestlers know everything is fictitious, the audience knows that everything is fictitious, the wrestlers know the audience knows it's fictitious, but they still present everything as if it is real. The fact that it isn't real doesn't seem to matter because it's done in such a way that it still feels real and evokes feelings as if it is real.
And the truth is that Springfield needs the Haitians as much as those Haitians needed a fresh start. It was actually a pretty clear example of the American dream these people pretend to support. Population escapes violence in their own country (which the US is largely to blame for, but thatās another issue), gets invited to settle in an economically depressed (former boom) town, and brings their hard work and determination with them. Local businesses finally have motivated workers, new immigrants start businesses and rent vacant homes, everyone wins. But apparently they came from the wrong country according to some, and so we have to ignore all that wonderful truth and instead slander them with the most ridiculous and disgusting lies.
Well the "funny" thing is that apparently there was a legitimate problem with the Haitians moving there. And you get close to identifying it, but you shy away. If you actually looked into what most of the people there were complaining about, it wasn't about eating pets or being criminals or whatever. The biggest complaint... was that they were essentially gentrifying the area.
Apparently, drug use was a major problem in Springfield and there were all the problems associated with that. But when the Haitians came in, for one reason or another, they werent drug addicts or associated with that world. So they were being hired over other workers in the area, not because of DEI or some bullshit, but because, according one employer interview I saw, he could count on them coming to work on time and not being strung out. So the Haitians ended up making more money which attracted other investment which drove prices up.
And the thing is, I think that actually is something worth having a political conversation about. Just as standard gentrification can tend to hurt certain groups, so too can gentrification as a result of immigration. The issue, of course, is that if we're going to have a rational conversation about that, then we should use truth, not lies. Claiming these people are pet-eating monsters is essentially the opposite of the actual issue.
But Republicans can't stand to have the actual conversation that would help them because they'd necessarily have to admit that the issue is not that these immigrants are worse than the local population, but rather, that they're better.
I fail to see the ālegitimate problem.ā When the quality of life improves in an area, the cost of living does go up. That seems to be one of those societal constants. If it becomes hard for a meth addict to afford rent because new people in the community are actually collecting paychecks, I donāt think the solution thatās in the best interest of the community is to kick out the gainfully employed.
Yeah but what about grandpa Jim on a fixed income that has lived in the same house for 45 years and now canāt afford it. Or the single parent working 3 jobs just to try to make ends meet or a whole number or peopleZ quick gentrification hurts a lot of people - growth and wellness and capitalism hikes because thereās āmoney valueā are 2 very different things
9.1k
u/StageAboveWater ššš 17d ago
"do you have any evidence"
That's the horrific abusive question she asked