Stereotype much?

Eurovision winner Conchita has told fans that she is HIV-positive, and has been in regular treatment for “several years”. The 29-year-old Austrian drag performer made a public statement on Instagram in response to an ex-boyfriend allegedly threatening to reveal the information.

23 comments on “Stereotype much?

  1. I can’t believe someone want to tap that.

    Yet more proof the Pope was right. HIV is not prevented by condom use but by not having irresponsible sex and especially anal sex with random strangers.

  2. The stereotype being the bitter ex prepared to reveal all to the tabloids. No other stereotypes to see here, move along now…

  3. “The stereotype being the bitter ex prepared to reveal all to the tabloids. No other stereotypes to see here, move along now…”

    Quite right, although I’m not sure you meant to be … being a famous effeminate bearded singer person is stereotypical of what, exactly? What is the precedent that Conchita is following? Demis Roussos?

  4. Another stereotype here is of the target internet user demographic who will click on any random clickbait link like a lab monkey frantically pressing the lever in hopes of another peanut.

    Also, the stereotypical internet media content sellers busy finding new ways to monetize somebody else’s tragedy. That one is a familiar image nowadays.

    “What is the precedent that Conchita is following?”

    Annie Jones-Elliot?

  5. Who cares? The notoriety is the beard and misplaced pronoun; otherwise completely uninteresting and the usual banal modern stupidity.

  6. Mental illness is often tragic and inability to face reality often compounds negative consequences.

    The only novelty is in the forms of human foolery not the essence.

  7. The mental illness is with the Guardian.

    ‘Eurovision winner Conchita has told fans that she is HIV-positive’

    She with a beard. Sure. And pigs can fly.

  8. Don’t care who Annie was.

    Guardian calls person with beard “she.” It’s stupid. Defending it is not in your best interest.

  9. “Guardian calls person with beard “she.” It’s stupid. Defending it is not in your best interest.”

    Defending a better understanding of reality is most certainly in my best interest. Calling a person with a beard “she” isn’t stupid – as the example of Annie Jones-Elliot clearly demonstrates.

    It’s a shame when people live with their heads so far up their own ideological bubbles, and don’t even want to know about the world outside them. They miss so much!

  10. If you are successful in the destruction of Western Civilization, you’ll be gone in the first round, NiV.

    Western Civilization keeps you alive. By all means, keep fighting it.

  11. Western civilisation succeeds the way it does because it adapts, because it adopts useful new techniques, because it evolves.

    The approach of enforcing rigid, unchanging stasis on culture, isolating and shielding it from all threats, is the path of the dodo. Western civilisation relies for its success on permitting cultural change. Any evolving system only acquires and retains strength by adapting to and surviving dangers. And it changes itself in the process – the old and unfit version disappears.

    Western civilisation has already changed, and now the majority is fully onside with the idea of women with beards. *You* are the one who is fighting Western Civilisation.

  12. @ NiV
    Have you ever observed a bearded women walk into a girls’ changing room and then listened to the reaction?
    I do *not* believe that the majority is fully onside with the idea of women with beards. A lot of people *say* that they are.

  13. “Have you ever observed a bearded women walk into a girls’ changing room and then listened to the reaction?”

    Are you asking me if I’ve been in the girl’s changing room to listen? Bit of a leading question…

    But I’ll ask – which changing room do you think Annie used? And what do you think the reaction was?

    “I do *not* believe that the majority is fully onside with the idea of women with beards. A lot of people *say* that they are.”

    Ah! This is the “the reality inside my head trumps the ‘reality’ of what everybody else says about what they think/feel/believe.” position. “Everyone who says they think differently to me is lying!” Of course they are. Because.

    Medieval society had one set of standards, Victorian society another. But you think society doesn’t change, and continues to live in the 1970s. Sure. “Sunnata Allahi allatee qad khalat min qablu walan tajida lisunnati Allahi tabdeelan!”

  14. “But you think society doesn’t change, and continues to live in the 1970s.”

    You are going too far, NiV. In times past, your kind would have been murdered. No one would care, as murder seemed appropriate for deviancy.

    Arguments were successfully made that private deviancy was no one else’s business. So people decided, “Okay, okay, what they do in private is none of my business.”

    But that didn’t end it. No. CM creeps took the momentum and push for more, to disrupt civilization by eliminating male/female distinctions, to be replaced by a silly, contrived gender system.

    The objective is not to help out poor, downtrodden queer people. The objective is to destroy Western Civilization.

    Here’s the thing. People went along with the decriminalizing deviancy. They are not going to go along with the follow on disruption. What is going to end up happening is that deviancy will be RECRIMINALIZED.

    I don’t know your motivation NiV. I assume you are CM scum, but you could just be a misguided advocate. If you are just an advocate, I give you fair warning: your pushing isn’t going to work out well for you; you risk losing everything.

  15. “Arguments were successfully made that private deviancy was no one else’s business.”

    It doesn’t matter if it’s public or private – the proper criterion is whether it is harmless to anyone else. And yes, those are the arguments I’m making – less successfully here, evidently.

    “But that didn’t end it. No. CM creeps took the momentum and push for more,”

    Yes, agreed. As I keep on saying.

    But as I’ve pointed out time and time again, they’re a different set of people. Most of the “CM scum” are healthy, wealthy, educated, heterosexual, cis-gendered people. By attacking the women with beards, you’re attacking the wrong set of people. It’s as stupid and counter-productive as expending all your ammo on killing the hostages, and leaving the hostage-takers untouched.

    There is a wide streak of authoritarianism in human nature. Lots of people like power over other people: the right to tell others what they can or cannot do. They always say it is for their victims’ own good, or for the moral good, or for the good of society. They have always been there, and bar future genetic engineering to change human nature, will always be.

    And they don’t give a damn what rules they enforce; they’ll seize on any opportunity going. So if society doesn’t approve of homosexuals and other “deviants”, they’ll persecute homosexuals and deviants. They did so here for centuries, and still do elsewhere in the world. If society changes the rules to legalise that sort of deviancy and instead disapprove of homophobia, they’ll just as cheerfully persecute homophobes in just the same way society previously persecuted homosexuals. Homophobia and transphobia is the new social “deviancy”.

    One of their favourite tactics is to find new sympathy groups. As society changes the rules to prevent some downtrodden minority (or even a powerless majority) being persecuted, they leap on the opportunity to grab the power to enforce it. They started with sympathy for the poor. They’ve used equal rights for women. They’ve advocated for disabled people. They’ve done the same for blacks, foreigners generally, and homosexuals. Apart from the poor, they’re all groups that Marxism has joined in persecuting in the past, when it was fashionable to do so (pink triangles, and so forth), but as fashions change, so do they.

    They find a group that society sympathises with, and that the right can be relied upon to object to. They then argue they need the power to protect this group from persecution. The right fall into the trap every time – getting angry at the sympathy group, which in turn makes the public hostile and unsympathetic to the right, and willing to let the left take the power to stop them. The left get to paint themselves as the good guys, and paint the right-wing as selfish racist sexist homophobic bigots. Confirming that image just helps the Marxists; justifies them in the eyes of the public.

    Arguments were successfully made that harmless deviancy (whether public or private) was no one else’s business, and the public got right onboard with that. You’ll get nowhere fighting that – society has already changed, and it’s for the better. What you need to fight is the people who seek to revert back to the old system of policing people’s opinions and private behaviour, just with a different target.

    Instead of making it the rule that we don’t persecute harmless social deviants, of any sort – they’re instead trying to keep the old system with a redefinition of “deviant”. Blacks have been replaced with racists. Uppity women have been replace with sexists. Homosexuals have been replaced with homophobes. But the system is still the same. Society still defines a set of acceptable norms for people’s behaviours and beliefs, and enforces them with authoritarian rules. If you want to avoid persecution, you’ve got to change the system. And that means we don’t persecute homosexuals *or* homophobes, so long as they’re minding their own business and not bothering anyone else.

    Nothing else will work in the long run. So long as we simply keep shuffling chairs, we’re always going to find eventually that we’re sitting in the wrong one. So long as people continue to see the aim of the game as being to be the ones in control, the system will stay the same and the authoritarian cycle will continue. Orwell’s image of future was that of a boot stamping on a human face, forever – and he was right, it’s just that we all endlessly take turns to be the one wearing or the one under the boot.

    The only alternative is to take off the boot. That’s what Western Civilisation since the Enlightenment is all about.

  16. ‘By attacking the women with beards, you’re attacking the wrong set of people.’

    Women with beards, eh?

    Ask a hundred people if that’s stupid, and 100 will say yes. You are 100% stupid.

  17. “Ask a hundred people if that’s stupid, and 100 will say yes. You are 100% stupid.”

    Ask a hundred people whether there is any such thing as a “bearded lady”, and I think most of them will say “yes, of course”. They were one of the enduring tropes of the Victorian circus and travelling shows – Annie being one of the most famous examples, working for the even more famous P T Barnum.

    And I think if you asked those same one hundred people what they think of the sort of drooling idiot who not only denied that any such thing could possibly exist, but had his head so stuck so far up his own worldview that he couldn’t even conceive that he might be in error, or that everyone was laughing at his country bumpkin ignorance, and indeed was so deluded as to think other people agreed with him despite a total absence of supporting evidence, … well, I think “stupid” might be one of the milder epithets. Although “bigoted” might be more precise.

    Yes, some women have beards. There are several genetic and hormonal medical conditions that can cause it. It’s one of the huge range of examples of people not fitting into the simplistic binary categorisation of sexual traits that is all the simple-minded seem able to cope with. Beard does not always imply male. Most of society knows this now, although even modern instances of bearded girls still get bullied by the ignorant and the social inadequates, happy to find someone even more of an outsider than they are that they can demonstrate their social dominance over.

    But irrespective of all that, the point remains that women with beards are not doing anyone else any harm by being so, and so in a free society should not have their normal everyday activities interfered with. This is the freedom-supporting, anti-authoritarian position you ought to be standing up for, assuming you genuinely oppose the cultural Marxists because of their authoritarian evil.

    But if all you are asking is that it be your own competing brand of authoritarian evil that should triumph, and you are only complaining that you are not being allowed to bully and denigrate a group of people who have done you no harm, but who simply don’t fit into your rigid (and incorrect) mental categories of how people are, or how they are allowed to be or to behave – that you demand the right to define what is “deviant”, impose your definitions on the rest of society, and drive anyone who doesn’t conform to your insane demands into hiding – then why on Earth should anyone else support you, or your rights? Reciprocity exists for a reason, you know.

    It’s simple. What people believe, say, are, or do with their own lives is their own business. We *all* stop imposing norms on society and punishing deviancy from them. And in return, we can ask that they stop doing the same to us.

    If you want social norms and for deviants from them to be punished, then don’t complain when society suddenly reclassifies you as a deviant (“homophobe!”) and puts the boot in. You’re getting exactly what you asked for.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.