>You have to understand us identity politics to know why that wasn’t supposed to be derogatory. For what it's worth, I live in the US, completely understand id

>You have to understand us identity politics to know why that wasn’t supposed to be derogatory. For what it's worth, I live in the US, completely understand identity politics and am fully aware of the stereotypes - accurate or not - about how right-leaning individuals largely live "in squalor" relative to other political parties. I understand where you're coming from, I would just suggest that you be a little more thoughtful in how you approach that subject next time. Saying, "Ivermectin saves republican lives because they already have worms in their body (from living in rural squalor)," sounds a lot like you've generalized every single Republican in the country as both having worms and "living in squalor". In point of fact, not every Republican has worms, and certainly not every Republican lives in squalor. Living in squalor is also not a prerequisite for getting worms. A better way to approach it would be to say something along the lines of, "It's my understanding that states whose climates are more prone to worms are red states, so - correct me if I'm wrong - I would assume that we're more likely to see worm infections in Republicans than Democrats. This is also bolstered by the fact that 3 million more Republicans live in poverty compared to Democrats[1]." [1]https://www.brookings.edu/research/poverty-crosses-party-lines/#AL https://www.brookings.edu/research/poverty-crosses-party-lin... Just a thought.