• atetulo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Here's the major difference: we're not just talking about tent cities. You specifically said those were people with full-time jobs that couldn't afford living quarters.

    Can you prove that the tent cities outside of major cities are primarily occupied by full-time workers?

    There you go moving goalposts and trying to distort reality. This is why I don't trust you.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Primarily occupied? No. Because I never made that claim. Feel free to quote me. Since, you know, I'm the liar here.

      • atetulo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Then there is no discussion. My argument ever since your reply has been that the phenomenon that you pointed out can only happen in major cities: people working full-time but can't afford living quarters.

        Yeah, of course a homeless person without a job needs more money. I'm not referring to them because there's honestly no point to. You knew I wasn't referring to them, which is why you had to specify some of the people there were working full-time jobs.

        I'm referring to the people working jobs who feel they should get paid more while people around the world work harder for less. Those are the ones I do not take seriously.

        You, the liar that you are, posted a picture of people living in tents then said some of them have full-time jobs? How much is some? And to those some, I am specifically referring that their money would go further outside of major cities.

        Anyways. This entire argument is in bad faith. I can tell you're the kind of person who thinks more money is the solution to all working class problems. It isn't.

        Gonna block you now.