site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 9, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

8
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Mm.

Suppose we have the following two statements:

"There's nothing wrong with these acts or the communities that celebrate engaging in them."

"These communities were ground-zero for a plague that has to date killed an amount of people roughly equivalent to a world war, and the acts they engaged in and their celebration of those acts resulted in a highly disproportionate amount of what we know term super-spreading, particularly in the early stages of that pandemic."

Are these statements compatible?

Would you consider conservatives dangerous, due to their behavior in spreading the Covid plague?

Have you considered that part of why AIDS was so dangerous, was because we didn't really have the concept of "AIDS" back then?

Would you consider conservatives dangerous, due to their behavior in spreading the Covid plague?

I don't think Conservative behavior had any significantly disproportional impact on spreading the Covid plague. But then, I observe that there were a lot of people who disagreed very strongly with my assessment, who called people like my own family members "plague rats", who advocated firing them from their jobs or even putting them in camps, or any of a wide variety of social or legal sanctions in between.

Meanwhile, I observe that Homosexual (and hard drug user) behavior appears to have had a very significant impact on spreading AIDS as widely as possible in the early years of the outbreak. The contrast between the treatment of those opposed to lockdowns or vaccine mandates for COVID, and those who for selfish reasons actively spread an extremely lethal plague as widely as possible is my whole point here.

Have you considered that part of why AIDS was so dangerous, was because we didn't really have the concept of "AIDS" back then?

My understanding is that from fairly early on, they understood that there was an infectious, lethal pathogen, and they understood that it was being spread primarily by homosexual practices and drug use. Further, my understanding is that some gay men intentionally spread it as much as possible, and more gay men staunchly opposed any restrictions on homosexual activity. Eventually this opposition was at least partially overcome, but by then AIDS was endemic.

Does that description seem inaccurate to you?

Further, my understanding is that some gay men intentionally spread it as much as possible

It really seems like you're focusing on the worst possible examples. This feels like blaming all conservatives for the tiny minority involved in school shootings. Do you really think you're learning useful things about the world by focusing on the worst 1% of a group? Do you feel that other groups should be held to a similar standard, even one's that you're a part of?

Just taking a quick look at an actual timeline here (https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/history/hiv-and-aids-timeline#year-1982)

May 31, 1982: The Los Angeles Times publishes the first front-page story on AIDS in the mainstream press: “Mysterious Fever Now an Epidemic.”

June 27, 1982: A gay activist group in San Francisco publishes the first pamphlet on “safer sex” and distributes 16,000 copies at the International Lesbian & Gay Freedom Day Parade.

Does that really sound like a group that's trying to spread AIDS and opposed to restrictions on homosexual activity?

March 4, 1983: The report suggests that AIDS may be caused by an infectious agent that is transmitted sexually

9 months AFTER that safer sex pamphlet, science is finally confident that it might be sexually transmitted

October 24, 1986: CDC reports that AIDS cases are disproportionately affecting African Americans and Latinos.

Are you comfortable saying the same things about these groups as you are about homosexuals?

Going to another source: https://www.aidsmemorial.org/interactive-aids-quilt

Does the AIDS memorial quilt really suggest a group that doesn't care about the consequences of their actions?


The contrast between the treatment of those opposed to lockdowns or vaccine mandates for COVID, and those who for selfish reasons actively spread an extremely lethal plague as widely as possible is my whole point here.

I don't get it - you seem opposed to lockdowns for spreading an airborne pandemic that threatens everyone near you, but you also seem to be advocating for lockdowns against a pandemic which only threatens sexual partners? What sort of quarantine actions were you expecting for AIDS? Do you really think "make gay sex illegal" is a reasonable policy position, and would you have also supported "ban all sex during COVID"?

For that matter, weren't there plenty of people selfishly spreading COVID? People who went to major events and caught flights, despite knowing they were feeling sick? Isn't that selfish behavior that we should want to punish?

It really seems like you're focusing on the worst possible examples.

That's pretty much the definition of what a "superspreader" is, isn't it? And the reason that term is now common knowledge is that, at least hypothetically, superspreaders can cause immense amounts of harm by spreading infectious diseases.

This feels like blaming all conservatives for the tiny minority involved in school shootings.

Well, let's roll out the comparison and see where it leads us. Roughly half of gay men in America died to the aids epidemic. What percentage of that number do you think died because they scrupulously avoided risky activities, and just got really, really unlucky?

Meanwhile for COVID or school shooting deaths, I don't think either correlate with Conservative behavior at all, though it is absolutely routine to see such claims made. Having seen such claims made, I'm backtracking the logic to a situation where there does, in fact, appear to be a correlation.

Do you feel that other groups should be held to a similar standard, even one's that you're a part of?

This standard has been applied to groups I'm a part of, and using false data to boot.

Does that really sound like a group that's trying to spread AIDS and opposed to restrictions on homosexual activity?

Did their efforts work? Not before the disease killed roughly half the male homosexuals in America and went on to be a global pandemic. My understanding of the history is that activists arguing for restrictions were outnumbered by those arguing for no restrictions until it was much, much too late, and even the restrictions they belatedly put in place were not enough to halt the spread.

Are you comfortable saying the same things about these groups as you are about homosexuals?

The actual record of how the disease spread and who it killed tells the story. AIDS is spread overwhelmingly by risky behavior. If Blacks and Latinos are disproportionately contracting the disease, that tells me they're disproportionately engaging in risky behavior. What's the alternative explanation?

I don't get it - you seem opposed to lockdowns for spreading an airborne pandemic that threatens everyone near you, but you also seem to be advocating for lockdowns against a pandemic which only threatens sexual partners?

In the first place, it seems pretty clear to me that the lockdowns and the vaccines failed at their defined objectives. COVID was too infectious to be controlled, the vaccines were not terribly effective and had side effects, and top-down government mandates caused much harm for little to no benefit.

Despite this, those objecting or resisting absurdly massive and unbelievably draconian interventions into every facet of our lives were treated like antisocial scum, and in many cases had the resources of the state turned against us to punish resistance in any form. This was cheered by the Blue population broadly, based on widespread lies told by academic and government agencies, and the result was demonization of people like myself.

I am pointing out that the gay community was the actual epicenter of a much worse disease than COVID, and the individual action of the members of that community evidently played a pivotal role in the disease becoming endemic, resulting in dozens of millions of deaths. The disease was straightforwardly more serious than COVID. The actions taken to spread the disease were straightforwardly more objectionable, and the end result seems significantly worse. Yet the standard narrative I observe is that American Gays were the victims, and Lockdown/Vaccine Mandate opponents were the straightforward victims.

It seems to me that this narrative is built on a stack of lies, and so I am kicking at them to see what happens.

If you think the "coordinated meanness" deployed against lockdown/mandate opponents was appropriate, what was the appropriate level of "coordinated meanness" for gay men when AIDS got rolling?

For that matter, weren't there plenty of people selfishly spreading COVID? People who went to major events and caught flights, despite knowing they were feeling sick? Isn't that selfish behavior that we should want to punish?

If we're going to punish selfish behavior, I'd like to imagine we'd punish it based on fair and impartial standards, and not play tribal favorites.

...What's your guess at the average number of sexual partners per month for a Gay man in California or New York in the era immediately predating AIDS?

COVID was too infectious to be controlled

Alright, let's take a simple example: Australia.

2020, the year COVID hit: 906 deaths

2021: 1,355 deaths

2022, when the conservative government ended lockdowns: 10,301 deaths

(source: https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/covid-19-mortality-australia-deaths-registered-until-31-january-2024)

It seems kinda baffling to say conservative policy didn't cause anyone to die when their policy decision caused the death rate to go 10x.

I think we can reasonably extrapolate from Australia to other nations: maybe not as extreme, but you can tell when conservative policies won out again and again, because each time there's suddenly a bunch more dead people. You can perhaps argue about tradeoffs, but that's not what you said. You said "I don't think Conservative behavior had any significantly disproportional impact on spreading the Covid plague". I dare say policy decisions are a Conservative behavior

the vaccines were not terribly effective

I don't think I've ever seen a source that listed less than 90% immunity from the vaccine - what exactly is your standard here?

had side effects

... are you really being intellectually rigorous here? If we take that 90% immunity figure at face value, it saved millions of lives. What side effects, exactly, are so severe as to compare to "millions of lives saved"?

I am pointing out that the gay community was the actual epicenter of a much worse disease than COVID

7 million Covid deaths in 4 years VS 42 million AIDS death in 40 years. So Covid is twice as lethal per year. That's not factoring in the fact that we had 40 years of medical advancements to help us combat Covid, whereas we had absolutely no clue what AIDS was for the first two years. That is an absolutely huge difference in our technology and ability to respond - I imagine if we'd had the AIDS vaccine 2 years in, the story would be vastly different

(Also not factoring in that the US has been below-average for AIDS for decades, or that the worst-hit region for AIDS is Africa)