i think it’s masterful distraction strategy that we’re discussing immigrants in Ohio eating pets as some abstract definition of racism instead of focusing on the *actual* issues caused by an unchecked border (national security and debt, employment, healthcare), and i think we’re all foolish to be falling for it.

/ted | exploring the onchain frontier | surfing @ venice, ca | eating @ gjusta / gjelina

How does talking about people eating pets lead to a discussion about immigration policy?

Is the rhetoric not a complete evasion of the *actual* issues in a cheap attempt at fearmongering?

How is it anything other than what the most obvious conclusion is?

One could debate immigration but it is manifest that the people taking about pet eaters have no interest in doing so. They don’t deserve legitimation.

i think we agree? the pet eating discourse, brought up in the context of immigration, often prevents us talking about immigration policy at all because it pulls us into a discussion about racism or whatever else (which yes racism is a problem) away from immigration.