Like I get that ivermectin can be harmful and isn’t meant for COVID w/e.
But I also know a lot of houseless people and uninsured that have relied on animal medication when human medication was inaccessible to them due to the cost. Is it safe or advised? No. But it’s nice to not have to choose between medication and eating when you’re sick and poor.
This whole “lol they take horse meds they’re dumb” is a bad way to angle your argument IMO as it can be leveraged to punch down. And we need to be thinking critically about what kind of laws can come from encouraging takes like this. I don’t want to limit anyone’s access to affordable medicine even if some people abuse that access to get diarrhea.
Perhaps we shouldn’t be attacking the problem on some intrinsic “human taking animal meds bad” but more on the reasons people do it? Because all of this links back to the bigger problem that America doesn’t have adequate healthcare for its people. And, I would argue, that leveraging the discussion from that logic would add more weight to our cause and help more people see the inherent evils that are contributing to this. (Namely American healthcare interest groups)
Thoughts?
This isn’t just a “take” though, the media has shifted to heavily criticizing animal meds and the people who take them. We’re just regurgitating it for memes. In 2016 they were reporting on people using animal medicine off label too but it was allowed to be framed from a “these people are poor and have no option” perspective. Those people still exist but now their stories are being ignored and hampered by this ivermectin trend. Now animal meds=anti-Vax to neoliberals where as before it meant someone too poor to afford medicine.
You really don’t see how a media narrative effects the way our laws are written? Is manufacturing consent a lie or something?
I think you're conflating these two situations because both are about human use of animal medication
I’m conflating them because when I search for news on people taking animal antibiotics and insulin I’m confronted with articles that only focus on the evils ivermectin. The only articles I can find showing any sympathy to people on animal antibiotics and insulin is before the pandemic hit. If normal people aren’t exposed to something that questions the narrative they will take the one presented to them and run with it. Right now that presented narrative is “animal medicine is for rich chuds” and that erases the experience of a marginalized population to focus on dunking on a privileged one.
I think you're just mad at the Google search algorithm here.
Yes because it's filled with liberals like you
-the liberal algorithm
the algorithm is filled with liberals?
i'm filled with liberals?
i'm the liberal?
:jesse-wtf:
and idk if you noticed, but we're not the mainstream media bashing the poor
Me: Do you think this narrative could be used for harm in the future?
You: We’re not bashing the poor.
It’s like you’re talking at me not with me.
your own words
Where does that accuse anyone of bashing the poor again? I’m saying we’re criticizing people that take animal medication, not all of whom are poor. Saying something could have the unintended consequence of harming the poor is not the same as accusing someone of being malicious against the poor.
If you’re not intentionally nuance trolling, it’s time to clarify whether this thread is a callout of forum behavior or a discussion of frustration with off-site behavior and no proposed solution.
Does “callout” imply that I think this narrative is intentional or malicious coming from hexbear? Because I do not.
Can it be both? I’m frustrated that off-site behavior is having an effect on on-site behavior but I don’t think anyone here is genuinely against the poor? I was curious if anyone else was worried that this could be co-opted to paint poor people as stupid because of the actions of a few chuds. If the deaths really are less than toaster deaths for ivermectin how does that compare to the hundreds of thousands that lose their lives to lack of affordable healthcare?
Can that small harm be used to justify magnifying the big harm? Historically America has done this for less. I guess all of it is pretty moot because ideally no one would have to resort to animal medication. But with Biden in office we aren’t going to see that change. I’m concerned about the changes we could see and how they could get us closer to greater harm.
I know hexbear has no large effect as an isolated community. But the actions we take individually outside of this website can have a greater impact. I guess I just chose this void to yell into because I thought it would listen.
Of course corporate media is putting an anti-poverty spin on it. That doesn’t mean every anti-ivermectin meme is anti-homeless or that the anti-ivermectin memes are astroturfed. Coming here to tell us that our memes are anti-homeless is not a solution to the corporate manufacturing of consent. Reminder that Merck is terrified of this becoming a liability for them and will do whatever it takes to put the blame on individuals, up to and including a mass propaganda campaign
I never said the memes were anti-homeless. I merely think we should consider the narrative a meme that says “animal meds are for idiots” says vs “ivermectin isn’t for covid” or even “ivermectin is for idiots” if you really gotta call someone stupid.
If Merck really cared about liability they would pull their drug from the market while waiting for the fad to pass. The fact that they haven’t tells me they’re probably already protected from liability from the warnings on their labels. Just like any other medication/vaccine. Rn they’re just collecting the check.
Does this website look like MSNBC though?