@CriticalDuty comments on "Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023

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.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

CriticalDuty 1yr ago

Condoms are cheap and plentiful already, often even free. Even so, 1 in 6 homosexual men will be diagnosed with HIV in their lifetime, with the number rising to 50% of gay black men. I'm unaware of any other demographic whose existence is only made possible by pharmaceutical companies stepping in to stop 16-50% of the population and its subgroups from dying in the streets due to self-inflicted pathogens.

Also lesbians have especially low STD rates. Shall I accept that as a reason to advocate lesbianism since we are apparently concerned with STD rates? Or is this concern selectively targeted?

Sure, go ahead. Lesbians mostly slap each other around AFAIK, but that happens behind closed doors and doesn't require billions in health spending to prevent national contagions, so I'll freely admit I don't care about it as much.

Context

Chrisprattalpharaptr Ave Imperaptor CriticalDuty 1yr ago

I'm unaware of any other demographic whose existence is only made possible by pharmaceutical companies stepping in to stop 16-50% of the population and its subgroups from dying in the streets due to self-inflicted pathogens.

The infant mortality rate was 46% a scant 200 years ago. Presumably it would reach that again in the absence of modern medicine and sanitation. Literally every demographic is heavily dependent on government and corporate spending.

No_one Chrisprattalpharaptr 1yr ago

If infant mortality went up, so would birth rates almost certainly.

Literally every demographic is heavily dependent on government and corporate spending.

Bullshit. People were breeding more prolifically in the absence of government spending. Daily doses of excitement and the meaning derived from imposing your will on the hostile world are what we evolved to do.

Being docile cubicle drone is unnatural which is why people are so sad now.

Chrisprattalpharaptr Ave Imperaptor No_one 1yr ago

In the same way that withholding maternal/infant care wouldn't cause the human race to go extinct, withholding HIV medication wouldn't cause the extinction of the gay community. Clearly OP means 'dependent on medical care' as shorthand for 'dependent on medical care for a relatively normal healthspan/lifespan,' not 'dependent on medical care for the group to exist, period.'

sun Chrisprattalpharaptr 1yr ago

Even then, people for some reason love assuming that group behaviour is static. Whites have below replacement birth rates so we MUST DO SOMETHING NOW or they will go extinct! Gays are reckless so if medical care is withdrawn they will go extinct from AIDS! It's as if they haven't even thought of the idea that people behave differently when in peril vs. out of peril.

jkf sun 1yr ago

Gays are reckless so if medical care is withdrawn they will go extinct from AIDS!

It's just that back when AIDS was a deadly peril, the gays (as a bloc) were still pretty reckless?

sun jkf 1yr ago

Well, they didn't go extinct.

Humans are hard to drive extinct -- but I think the drugs saved an awful lot of people who were hanging in there (but facing a sharply reduced lifespan) in the 90s.

Probably there would not be zero gay men with no ARV drugs, no, but if a man is gay in the forest and nobody hears him, does he make a sound?

ArjinFerman Tinfoil Gigachad Chrisprattalpharaptr 1yr ago

You're ignoring the self-inflicted part. There's no inherent reason why gay men should be more exposed to STDs than any other population.

Chrisprattalpharaptr Ave Imperaptor ArjinFerman 1yr ago

Fair enough. Although to a large extent, it's just bad luck that HIV is so difficult to vaccinate against/treat paired with much easier anal/i.v. transmission versus vaginal. In a world where HIV was cured with a round of antibiotics similarly to syphilis or gonorrhea I suspect CD would nevertheless hate the gays.

Speaking of self-inflicted diseases necessitating medical intervention, I hope he isn't obese. You could level his argument at more or less the entite developed world and diseases of affluence.

In a world where HIV was cured with a round of antibiotics similarly to syphilis or gonorrhea I suspect CD would nevertheless hate the gays.

Didn't he point out that the issue of AIDS and other STDs is already preventable? If he hates them, it seems to stem from the lack of precautions they are taking, rather than them being gay.

Yup!

Didn't he point out that the issue of AIDS and other STDs is already preventable?

He never mentioned other STDs

If he hates them, it seems to stem from the lack of precautions they are taking, rather than them being gay.

The idea that he decides which demographics to hate based on whether they avoid preventable diseases or not is laughable

HIV is not sexually transmitted?

Yeah hate is way too much, I'm at most bemused, and it has at least as much to do with some gay activists acting entitled.

On the other hand, I do remember a lot of hate, for precisely that reason, during COVID times, and I don't recall you laughing.

You said HIV and other STDs. I said he never mentioned other STDs. Why are you claiming that he did?

HIV is largely sexually transmitted, with something like 10% of infections through IV drug use and another 'unknown' bucket that is more or less irrelevant with antiretrovirals. If memory serves.

The idea that liberals decide who to hate based on preventable disease transmission is also laughable. They hated republicans long before COVID, and afaict will hate them for long afterwards. If republicans had been COVID hawks, they would have hated them for shutting down righteous BLM protests and tindr hookups.

gattsuru ArjinFerman 1yr ago

There's a lot of bad information on the effectiveness of condoms for preventing HIV transmission. They're useful, but it's probably closer to an order of magnitude difference for perfect-use, rather than a complete barrier.

((And any look back that includes pre-1986 also has the problem the other direction: a lot of the explosive transmission of HIV and YOLO-esque behavior came about during the Ryan White-era, where people believed that standing too close to or using the same bathroom as a gay man could transmit HIV. Despite the wikipedia summary, they believed that because a lot of mainstream experts were cautioning about it! The devil-may-care behavior regarding condoms during a lot of that time period makes more sense when people reasonably believed that would have little impact.))

CriticalDuty gattsuru 1yr ago

No, this is the product of historical revisionism aimed at making homosexuals seem more sympathetic than they actually were and are. The scientists and experts who were at Ground Zero of the AIDS epidemic noted several times that many of their HIV-positive patients were intelligent, savvy men who understood the risks and transmissibility of HIV/AIDS as it was explained to them. They chose to continue spreading HIV anyway, because they simply did not care. See Marcus Conant:

I can recall about that same time seeing a patient who was a young Ph.D. scientist from the Peninsula [south of San Francisco], a very good-looking man with Kaposi's sarcoma who I was caring for. He had AIDS. He was sitting in my clinic on Parnassus. He was kind of impatient. I said, "I'm sorry I'm running late; I can tell you're impatient. What's wrong?" He said, "I wish you'd hurry up; I'm going to the bathhouses." My reaction was, "Wait a minute."

See, I was being a typical physician. We all in this society forget--and I think physicians are the worst--that when people are diagnosed with a fatal disease, all of the desires and longings and drives that they had the day before they were diagnosed are still there. Everybody believes that patients who are dying of AIDS are no longer sexual. I have patients that have sex the day before they die. I encourage them to do that. And people believe that women who have had breast cancer are no longer intimate or have longings to be intimate. We need to begin to relate to people and realize that those human, very human, desires don't go away because you have now had a label of "AIDS victim" stuck on you.

But being the typical doctor, it just never occurred to me that he was still out there having sex. He had Kaposi's sarcoma--AIDS, this horrible new, fatal disease. My line to him was, "Somebody must think you're smart, because they gave you a Ph.D. How come you're still going to the bathhouses?"

He said, "There's nothing wrong with that. I probably caught it there, and so my view is, it's there and I'm going to have sex." I said, "Are you telling the people that you're having sex with that you're HIV-positive"--it wasn't even called HIV then--"that you have AIDS?" He said, "No. I figure that they ought to be smart enough to understand that there's AIDS out here, and that they can catch it. It's their responsibility as much as mine." I think that that, more than any other single event, called into focus for me the notion that someone needs to speak out.

FarNearEverywhere CriticalDuty 1yr ago

He said, "There's nothing wrong with that. I probably caught it there, and so my view is, it's there and I'm going to have sex." I said, "Are you telling the people that you're having sex with that you're HIV-positive"--it wasn't even called HIV then--"that you have AIDS?" He said, "No. I figure that they ought to be smart enough to understand that there's AIDS out here, and that they can catch it. It's their responsibility as much as mine."

I wonder how much of that was driven by fear and resentment - I have this new disease, it's going to kill me, somebody gave it to me because they didn't know or care they had it and they were too horny and stupid not to stop, so why should I care? Why should I be careful that some son-of-a-bitch will continue to be alive and healthy when I have to die, with all my life ahead of me? If I have to go, they can go too if they're too horny and stupid to live.

gattsuru CriticalDuty 1yr ago

Your cite is from this discussion, discussing philosophy during 1983 by doctors, written in 1996 from interviews in 1992-1995. The same piece also describes out, from the exact same time period (though a different doctor):

Moss: I drew that line with a thick felt tip, and I thought: My house is inside the line. So what's going to happen? Are they going to put barbed wire around this line? Are they going to have a cordon sanitaire? See, at this point, we didn't know how infectious the disease was. And one thing that starts happening in 1983 is major infectious disease paranoia: Are we all going to get it? Is everybody going to get it?

Now, if it was as infectious as hepatitis B, then 5 to 10 percent of the medical staff would have died of AIDS, because that's the infection rate of hepatitis B. We didn't know it was only transmitted sexually and by blood. It could have been multiply transmitted. Everybody could have gotten it. For all we knew, the entire population of San Francisco could have been infected, or could have been threatened.

Now, if that had been true, then they would have put that fence around the Castro. They would have razed a six-block area around it, and left the gays inside it.

Hughes: In the late twentieth century, they would have done that?

Do you know about Ebola virus and Marburg virus? There are viruses that kill everybody. Now, suppose it [the infectious agent] is airborne, and you can get it by walking through the Castro. Now, how do you think people would have taken that?

Hughes: Well, there was a paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association by Oleske on the casual household transmission of AIDS, which apparently caused a real ruckus.

Moss: Well, there were many ruckuses. There's a two-year period in 1983 and '84 when nobody knows what's happening, and the concern level has risen very high. And that's when this fear of stigmatization is going on. It makes everybody very paranoid indeed, because who knows who's getting it, and who knows what the political consequence will be? What if it really is like pneumatic plague, where you breathe on people and they get it? Or TB [tuberculosis]? We didn't know whether that was the case. Nobody knew that. And it was a reasonable speculation that it could be at least as infectious as hepatitis B, and that would have been really bad.

So paranoia was very high, and I'm drawing this line [around the Castro], and I'm having paranoid fantasies about what might happen as a result of this line. Pat Norman had the same reaction. She gets scapegoated for this, but lots of people were having the same reaction: Wait a minute. I don't want to hear this. I'm just going to quietly leave town now, before you publish it.

The interview references Oleske, but another certain famous asshole had outsized influence.

What is this place?

Why are you called The Motte?

New post guidelines

Rules

Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats