What?


Worse yet, though, Sheen’s promiscuity is already being misused to stigmatize his HIV status, which feels like the worst kind of callback to the 1980s.

We shouldn’t talk about STDs and promiscuity?

33 thoughts on “What?”

  1. We shouldn’t talk about STDs and promiscuity?

    No. Because that’s regressive and victim-blamey and Christofascist. AIDS is a funny disease that way, it’s impolite to draw a link between someone’s behaviour and the health consequences.

    (Dunno why. It’s just common sense, like pointing out that if you poke a wasp’s nest with an umbrella, it’s your own fault if you get stung.)

    Unlike boozing:

    Sheen’s alcoholism is already being misused to stigmatize his liver status, which feels like the worst kind of callback to the 1980s.

    Or smoking:

    Sheen’s heavy smoking is already being misused to stigmatize his lung cancer status, which feels like the worst kind of callback to the 1980s.

    Anyway, I hope Charlie Sheen lives as long and happy a life as possible.

  2. amazingly Owen Jones is perplexed as to why this stigma is most present in the gay community.

    Which has over a generation lowered incidence and risk of HIV to that of the general population.

    Wouldn’t have anything to do with how stigmas work as a poor mans prevention strategy would it? No couldn’t possibly explain part of that drop…….

  3. Flubber – Eh, 50/50 I’d say.

    He’s rich enough to afford good drugs and his own needles, but stupid enough to share heroin with prossies.

    Also, he’s shagged tons of porn stars and strippers.

  4. Rob – amazingly Owen Jones is perplexed as to why this stigma is most present in the gay community.

    Is Owen Jones really gay, or just gay in the hypothetical sense?

    I can’t imagine anybody wanting to have sex with that pasty-faced, grinchy-looking bore. His bedroom probably has posters of Karl Marx and Jezza Corbyn staring forbiddingly at visitors.

  5. Top tip: phrases such as ‘call back’ and ‘call out’ and ‘feels like’ are excellent ways of identifying people who need punching.

  6. @Steve
    “it’s impolite to draw a link between someone’s behaviour and the health consequences”.
    Devil’s advocate here;-
    “If you draw offensive cartoons, you stand an increased likelihood of being shot”

  7. >“If you draw offensive cartoons, you stand an increased likelihood of being shot”

    Well, no-one’s denying that. In fact the likes of Mark Steyn draw attention to that very fact. The issue in that case is the fact that loonies shoot you because you offend them.

    Although lefties seem to have taken the view that you shouldn’t do this behaviour because it’s reckless. Kind of the opposite view that they take on AIDS.

  8. @Tel,

    exactly my point. Although it is not just the lefties who are holding contradictory views. Many commentators here would argue that people need to take responsibility for the outcomes of their actions

  9. Another good Leftie confusion is on personal responsibility. If a scantily-clad woman is raped, it’s 100% the man’s fault; on no account should you ever blame the victim. But if a theatre-full of revellers are massacred, it’s their own fault for not sufficiently opposing the war in the middle east.

  10. Although it is not just the lefties who are holding contradictory views

    It’s not a contradictory view: the difference is that the loonies are moral agents and therefore responsible for the shootings, whereas the HIV virus is not a moral agent and therefore the responsible party is the one who indulged in the risky behaviour.

    (Of course, the way lefties get around this is to deny moral agency to the loonies, but that is just ridiculous)

  11. So Much For Subtlety

    Rob Harries – “amazingly Owen Jones is perplexed as to why this stigma is most present in the gay community. Which has over a generation lowered incidence and risk of HIV to that of the general population.”

    I would be surprised if there was much stigma in the Gay community and astonished if the incidence of HIV was even remotely close to that of the general population. You know, given the main risk factors for HIV are passive anal sex, IV drug use and sex with Africans.

    “Wouldn’t have anything to do with how stigmas work as a poor mans prevention strategy would it? No couldn’t possibly explain part of that drop…….”

    Homosexuality is something they want to encourage so there should be no stigma. Racism is something they do not. Therefore anyone who owns a golliwog should be treated like the Second Coming of Hitler.

  12. My Mum owns a golliwog.

    I always wondered why her collection of WW2 memorabilia doesn’t include anything from the Allied side.

  13. So Much For Subtlety

    Andrew M – “My golliwog is gay.”

    They are all a bit Gay to be honest.

    Johann Hari claimed that all post-War neo-Nazi parties were led by homosexuals. So I guess the real question is whether your golliwog is a Gay Nazi.[1]

    [1] Actually the Village People would have been much better with a Gay Nazi.

  14. Sheen’s promiscuity is already being misused to stigmatize his HIV status

    Surely it’s exactly the other way round.

    Gunker,

    > If you draw offensive cartoons, you stand an increased likelihood of being shot

    Basic statistical error here: you’re comparing deliberate acts to accidents. If you’re more promiscuous, you’re more likely to have sex with someone who is more likely to have HIV — and either they don’t know they have HIV or they do know and there’s an accident with the condom or whatever.

    If you draw cartoons, certain people will want to kill you.

    The word “likely” in the two scenarios doesn’t mean quite the same thing in both.

  15. Actually the Village People would have been much better with a Gay Nazi.

    I thought the guy with the leather peaked hat was a gay nazi.

    Also, my Mum told me Dale Winton was forced by the Beeb to cover up his swastika tattoos.

  16. @S2

    “The word “likely” in the two scenarios doesn’t mean quite the same thing in both.”

    How about this one (obviously wrt the mad mullahs, not the Charlie), “If you wear provocative clothes and drink yourself to oblivion, you are more likely to end up in a bad situation, potentially raped”

  17. “Basic statistical error here: you’re comparing deliberate acts to accidents.”

    No, there’s no ‘statistical error’ here. Statistics doesn’t care how the acts were caused.

    “The word “likely” in the two scenarios doesn’t mean quite the same thing in both.”

    Incorrect. It does mean the same thing in both cases. There is a raised probability in both scanarios, despite the other differences.

  18. Rob Harries- “the [homosexual] community… Which has over a generation lowered incidence and risk of HIV to that of the general population.”

    Where did you get that idea? It’s much more common _everywhere_ among homosexuals than among people whose sex practices don’t cause anal fissures. http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/20/hiv-continues-to-spread-among-gay-men-studies-show/

    And as for stigma, if anything their practices have gotten worse over time- from simply ‘not being concerned about venereal disease’ to ‘seeking it out’. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE9JlONzrVU

  19. Salon.com have rendered parody and satire entirely redundant.

    If I were ‘Merkan I’d be tempted to organise a class action for blood pressure meds.

    bunch of c***s

  20. > No, there’s no ‘statistical error’ here. Statistics doesn’t care how the acts were caused.

    Sorry, I should have said “basic error in statistical interpretation”. Deliberate causes and accidental causes should not be treated as the same. Yes, I am aware that a lot of statisticians don’t make that distinction, which often leads them to foolish results.

    Simple example: crossing the road on foot is more dangerous than piloting a plane.

  21. I’m pissed off about Sheen.

    He’s drunk, coked and whored his way through 30 years or so in the public eye. And he’s fine. HIV at such low levels as to make no difference.

    I, on the other hand, was part of the generation marked by Zammo Maguire’s drug trauma, terrified by John Hurt telling me sternly not to have sex lest I die of ignorance, and every newspaper and media channel tells me that any more than a small sherry once a week makes me an alcoholic.

    The generation before me humped, coked and drank themselves silly. The generation after me is doing the same. It’s just me behaving myself.

    Why does God hate me so?

  22. John Square. You’ve still got time. Get out there and get pissed, I can send you some good coke (we make the stuff here) and you can’t be far from fanny. Just get on with it, you know you want to.

  23. “Sorry, I should have said “basic error in statistical interpretation”. Deliberate causes and accidental causes should not be treated as the same.”

    Of course they can be treated the same.

    “Simple example: crossing the road on foot is more dangerous than piloting a plane.”

    There’s nothing wrong with such a claim, statistically speaking. Whether it’s true, or whether it’s false, it’s not an illegitimate claim. Of course, it may be argued that you shouldn’t compare these things for other reasons, but none of that shows that there’s anything wrong with the claim as statistical claims (assuming we look at the relative frequencies involved).

    Not does it show that there’s anything different in the use of ‘likely’ in these different contexts. In both sorts of cases the use of ‘likely’ just means’ ‘makes more probable than not’.

  24. Correction: “none of that shows that there’s anything wrong with the claim as statistical claims” should be “none of that shows that there’s anything wrong with the claim as a statistical claim”.

  25. Rob: “Which has over a generation lowered incidence and risk of HIV to that of the general population.”

    I don’t think so. 6% of homosexuals in UK (13% in London) are HIV positive; the incidence in the general pop is about 0.1%.

    in 2013 there were 6000 new HIV diagnoses of which 3250 were homosexual/bisexual. So more that 50% of new diagnoses from a ‘community’ that makes up, what, 2 % or 3 % of the pop?

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hiv-infections-continue-to-rise

    The population with the highest incidence is black women 7%, then the gays at 6%, then black men at 4%. Prevalence in drug addicts is down a 0.6% and non-black men and women 0.06%.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401662/2014_PHE_HIV_annual_report_draft_Final_07-01-2015.pdf

    So if you stick to shagging white chicks you’ll be exposed only 6 times in 10,000 shags. Given the low transmission rates through vaginal intercourse you’re more likely to get your own TV show and be as rich as Charlie Sheen than you are to get HIV from banging white chicks without a condom.

    The biggest problem in stopping HIV is the SJW’s lying and bullying to silence people because reality doesn’t reflect their right-on view.

  26. > There’s nothing wrong with such a claim, statistically speaking. Whether it’s true, or whether it’s false, it’s not an illegitimate claim.

    Whether it’s true or false is rather the point. Statistics says it’s true, because statistics refuses to acknowledge that volition is relevant and insists on treating the behaviour of willful beings in exactly the same way as Brownian motion. It is in fact false.

    > Not does it show that there’s anything different in the use of ‘likely’ in these different contexts. In both sorts of cases the use of ‘likely’ just means’ ‘makes more probable than not’.

    Yet the use of probability is a very accurate and reliable way of predicting the behaviour of random events — such as in quantum mechanics or beating casinos — and the use of probability to find criminals — profiling — has been seriously discredited due to its history of utterly woeful claims. Because volition.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *