|
PT6A posted:Here's a question: do you think there's any way she or anyone else could report relevant facts to the public in such a way that people motivated to interpret those facts in bad faith could not use them as justification for hateful bullshit? She could have said something like, "while the disease is currently primarily seen in gay men, cases like the two children and others show that everyone is vulnerable" silence_kit posted:No there isn't a way for health organizations to talk about and effectively address monkeypox without doing that and there isn't a way to avoid 'causing harm' and mental distress in certain people who believe in ludicrously warped forms of egalitarianism. No we didn't.
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 02:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 18:48 |
|
|
Gripweed posted:She could have said something like, "while the disease is currently primarily seen in gay men, cases like the two children and others show that everyone is vulnerable" Do you think that would not have been equally twisted to demonize MSM? I don't think the people going on unhinged rants about gays being evil child molesters are arguing in good faith. I don't think we need to assume they are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 02:35
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Do you think that would not have been equally twisted to demonize MSM? No, of course it wouldn't have been equally twisted. Because the original statement wasn't twisted. Walensky said gay men are giving children monkeypox. The right wing can repost that verbatim. My suggestion would have had to have been twisted, because it does not include a causal link.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 02:47
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:Ah, it's time for another episode of my favourite TV show, What are you expecting the public to do about this? Seems like the courts stepped in and put a stop to it, which is their job. Who are these "experts" you're referring to and what was their advice for people?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 02:48
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:No, of course it wouldn't have been equally twisted. Because the original statement wasn't twisted. Walensky said gay men are giving children monkeypox. The right wing can repost that verbatim. My suggestion would have had to have been twisted, because it does not include a causal link. No, she said they have been traced back to the MSM community, which is either factually correct or it isn't. There are children with gay parents, children with gay siblings, and other situations where children might have sufficient contact with men who have sex with men, in a completely non-sexual way, that they could get the disease and it could be traced back to the MSM community. It's not a moral judgement unless you choose to make it one, and the people who are choosing to make it a moral judgement would do so regardless of how it was phrased, regardless of what evidence or lack thereof was presented.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 03:10
|
|
|
The Wall thing disgusts me. Huge portions of my ancestors came to the US fleeing the same sort of thing these current migrants are - war and famine. The Irish bits in particular were treated poorly, but *still* got better welcome than these folk. =(
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 03:23
|
|
|
PT6A posted:No, she said they have been traced back to the MSM community, which is either factually correct or it isn't. There are children with gay parents, children with gay siblings, and other situations where children might have sufficient contact with men who have sex with men, in a completely non-sexual way, that they could get the disease and it could be traced back to the MSM community. I'm going to drop this argument until and unless I can think of a way to respond that isn't attacking you personally. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 03:27
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:This is another example of why people who say things like 'intent doesn't matter' Did somebody say this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 03:37
|
|
|
I think the hard part with everything so politicized and the vaccine being so heavily gatekept for no discernible reason is that individual risk calculation has become almost impossible. I have no idea how worried I need to be about monkeypox. I could get ACAM2000 through a job change or travel to Canada for Jynneos, but as someone who doesn't touch a bunch of random people, do I need to? I have no real way of knowing. If it's like covid the vaccine won't count for too much for too long anyway! I have very little way of knowing! When the CDC says it's "not airborne" and "a gay virus" I just get flashbacks to the beginnings of the other two pandemics they have allowed to become endemic in my lifetime. If their goal is pandemic control, they're the worst agency in the government. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 03:38
|
|
|
PT6A posted:No, she said they have been traced back to the MSM community, which is either factually correct or it isn't. There are children with gay parents, children with gay siblings, and other situations where children might have sufficient contact with men who have sex with men, in a completely non-sexual way, that they could get the disease and it could be traced back to the MSM community. It’s factually correct but it’s also a fact the statement also leaves out information on how exactly the children got it. It’s also a fact this current environment is pretty bad given that the far right are labeling gay people pedos
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 04:57
|
|
|
PT6A posted:No, she said they have been traced back to the MSM community, which is either factually correct or it isn't. There are children with gay parents, children with gay siblings, and other situations where children might have sufficient contact with men who have sex with men, in a completely non-sexual way, that they could get the disease and it could be traced back to the MSM community. If her statement will likely lead to queerbashing then she should not loving say it. I don't give one solitary gently caress about the sort of justification she thought she had because this sort of dialogue leads to dead queer people A big flaming stink fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Jul 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 05:01
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:If her statement will likely lead to queerbashing then she should not loving say it but what if the queerbashing is part of an earnestly felt desire to induce debate, on their undesirability as people got some good friends who are gay parents and they are loving TERRIFIED of monkeypox, because they've got a three-year-old heading to preschool this year, and they know that 1. if their kid catches it he has a real chance of dying 2. in the event that he does, their being gay men will be presumed to be at fault, thanks to the CDC's brilliant messaging on the subject. they find this whole thing remarkably loving disgusting!
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 05:06
|
|
|
My argument is that no matter what she says, if she communicates the current spread pattern of the disease, it will be used to justify hatred and queerbashing. If the information is made publicly available I don’t think there’s any avoiding that, sadly. So you’re in fact saying that the CDC should refuse to disclose this information — essentially treating it as classified material. I think, on the balance, that’s not the worst idea, but can you imagine the conspiracy theories that would create?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 05:13
|
|
|
PT6A posted:My argument is that no matter what she says, if she communicates the current spread pattern of the disease, it will be used to justify hatred and queerbashing. If the information is made publicly available I don’t think there’s any avoiding that, sadly. So you’re in fact saying that the CDC should refuse to disclose this information — essentially treating it as classified material. i think you should stop treating this like an academic debate and consider marginalized people are at risk of being attacked over this poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 05:22
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:i think you should stop treating this like an academic debate and consider marginalized people are at risk of being attacked over this poo poo Our revolutionary romantics are the root cause of that. They’re going to be doing more of this and if they don’t get mistakes by public officials to latch onto they are going to fabricate reasons to attack the marginalized.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 05:40
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Our revolutionary romantics are the root cause of that. please consider there are better responses to "this act endangers people's lives" than "lol they were already being targeted by bigots, you can't prove this made things worse" op it was singularly unconvincing when Pete Buttigeig deployed it to explain why black kids getting hit by traffic wasn't worth getting upset about, and has not grown any more effective an argument in the intervening years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 05:44
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:please consider there are better responses to "this act endangers people's lives" than "lol they were already being targeted by bigots, you can't prove this made things worse" op Blaming the problem on anybody other than the fascists driving it, is pro fascist. But you know that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 06:29
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Blaming the problem on anybody other than the fascists driving it, is pro fascist. But you know that. Fash will always fash, but anyone moronic enough to give them free ammo, when their arty park is already sighted on a target should be fired.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 06:48
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:Fash will always fash, but anyone moronic enough to give them free ammo, when their arty park is already sighted on a target should be fired. As I’ve said previously she’s very bad at being the head of the CDC. There is a profound naivety about human behavior outside the academic bubble that is persistent in her decisions that has caused profound harm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 06:56
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Blaming the problem on anybody other than the fascists driving it, is pro fascist. But you know that. i dont consider our government fascist-less nor blameless
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 11:16
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Blaming the problem on anybody other than the fascists driving it, is pro fascist. But you know that. That's absurd. It's completely reasonable and correct to get mad at people who aid fascists, even if they themselves are not fascists personally. Do you consider nazi collaborators to be morally neutral since it was the nazis who caused the situation in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 13:06
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:i think you should stop treating this like an academic debate and consider marginalized people are at risk of being attacked over this poo poo Pretty much every topic on this board describes a situation where marginalized people - or all people - are at serious risk. Still the whole board is for academic debate, the rules are supposed to foreclose anything else. Gripweed posted:That's absurd. It's completely reasonable and correct to get mad at people who aid fascists, even if they themselves are not fascists personally. Do you consider nazi collaborators to be morally neutral since it was the nazis who caused the situation in the first place? I'm mad at Nazi collaborators for making a heinous moral decision. She didn't make a heinous moral decision, she screwed up how she communicated a sensitive idea. This goes into the intent v. impact stuff from yesterday. If we're talking about whether or not to get mad at someone, then all that matters is intent, right? After all, I'm sure you wouldn't be less mad at her if her mic suddenly cut out and nobody heard what she said, so the impact was nil but the intent was the same. Or if the Nazi collaborator screwed up so bad that they actually hurt the Nazi occupation, you would still be rightfully furious with that collaborator for even wanting to help the Nazis. Because the intent merits disdain. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 14:02 on Jul 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 13:56
|
|
|
Asking them to examine the universality of 'intent doesn't matter' thinking through examining hypotheticals is hopeless. The principle only gets applied to selective issues and only in cases where it benefits the user. Even when it is purportedly applied to judge a moral action, often instead the principle that REALLY gets applied in its place is: 'only my interpretation of your intent [which is the most antagonistic one] matters'. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Jul 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 14:08
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Asking them to examine the universality of 'intent doesn't matter' thinking through examining hypotheticals is hopeless. The principle only gets applied to selective issues and only in cases where it benefits the user. Could you just quote people directly instead of being vague like this? Especially when people are saying they are being personally mischaracterized.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 14:32
|
|
|
Bear Enthusiast posted:Could you just quote people directly instead of being vague like this? Especially when people are saying they are being personally mischaracterized. Read the below linked post and other posts by this poster on the subject. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=4005023&pagenumber=132&perpage=40#post525207308 I also don't believe that my argument is vague. It is really straightforward and doesn't rely on jargon & euphemism. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Jul 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 14:37
|
|
|
without a quotation of the person you are talking to this is just vaguely whining about how you feel disrespected by other people's posting style. this is not just posting about posters, it's posting about the idea of someone, somewhere, who might be posting something you object to, in place of actually trying to address a point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 14:45
|
|
|
I've directly addressed and quoted Gripweed in this thread! And have replied to his or her posts when I have received a response. It also isn't an objection to a posting style. It is an objection to a bogus kind of moral reasoning. I'm also warning Civilized Fishbot that in the past when I have tried to get posters to examine the universality of this kind of thinking, the response I overwhelming get is: 'what does my issue X have to do with your hypothetical' and usually there isn't much interest by others in examining whether this kind of moral reasoning is consistent, not self-contradictory, etc. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Jul 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 14:47
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Blaming the problem on anybody other than the fascists driving it, is pro fascist. But you know that. neither I nor the law consider the existence of 'aiding and abetting' as a charge pro-fascist, op. Niebuhr's philosophy did excellent work in salving the consciences of the men who knowingly supported the Nazis for their own enrichment, but when you strip all the flowery language from it, it's the guy who sold the gun that killed you saying 'hey, if I didn't sell it, someone else would have' while he counts his money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 14:57
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:it's the guy who sold the gun that killed you saying 'hey, if I didn't sell it, someone else would have' while he counts his money. Do you think this is the attitude with which the CDC Director is making public statements?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 15:09
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:As I’ve said previously she’s very bad at being the head of the CDC. There is a profound naivety about human behavior outside the academic bubble that is persistent in her decisions that has caused profound harm. I agree, but I think there's a larger structural problem that's been loving poo poo up since COVID began too: the CDC is tasked with being both an impartial developer and provider of data and relevant scientific communications, and also a public-relations arm. These two tasks are at odds with each other. Their communications on COVID were awful, and we're still paying the price, with insufficient quarantines, misinformation about droplet spread, people clinging to ideas about mask effectiveness based on poo poo that was done out of expediency in 2020. Providing the raw data direct to the public didn't work either, you had tons of base rate fallacy and other rookie statistical errors, some of them building to the level of actual conspiracy theories. The CDC, as an organization, has been placed in an impossible position, and I don't think it's fair to blame Walensky for occupying the seat which best encapsulates the inherent contradictions of the CDC's mission, because I fundamentally don't think anyone could do better. Maybe you have to refactor the entire organization into two separate bodies, one of which is concerned with controlling disease via communication with the public, and another which provides relevant scientific, medical and statistical data to healthcare professionals. I don't think one organization can do both at once without compromising one side of its mission, and the fact that Walensky has been asked to do both, means that she has been set up to fail.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 15:14
|
|
|
Just fyi this is the CDC's page about how to message to the LGBTQ community. 98% of infectees (as of June) were gay and bisexual men too. So the question becomes how does the CDC communicate this in a way to ensure the health and safety of men who have sex with men while not hurting the same community. Mooseontheloose fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Jul 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 15:16
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Do you think this is the attitude with which the CDC Director is making public statements? my scrying orb for peering into the hearts of man is in the shop, sorry. she is, however, making misleading statements in an extremely dangerous way, and I believe she should stop doing so. sound like a plan to you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:my scrying orb for peering into the hearts of man is in the shop, sorry. Same, so we shouldn't talk about how she's soothing her conscience or whether we should be mad at her because that's pointless weighing-her-soul stuff with no application to solving the problem. quote:she is, however, making misleading statements in an extremely dangerous way, and I believe she should stop doing so. sound like a plan to you? Totally agreed. As I've been saying she should have a spokesperson who's trained in science/public health communication.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Same, so we shouldn't talk about how she's soothing her conscience or whether we should be mad at her because that's pointless weighing-her-soul stuff with no application to solving the problem. yeah, that was a shot at the philosophy being deployed by Bar Ran Dun, not at her. Niebuhr is a theologian of whom Bar Ran Dun is very fond, and he made his bones as the intellectual patron saint of Cold War atrocity apologia. you know the serenity prayer? "Lord, grant me the ability to change the things I can, the serenity to accept the things I cannot, and the wisdom to know the difference." that was one of his, and it is a beautiful and universal sentiment. but if you consider yourself wise, and god knows if you're the kind of person who seeks Niebuhr out you put yourself in that group, it's also an intellectual get out of jail free card for any consequences of your actions. some things you just can't change, like the existence of homophobic bigots who will take your words as license to attack people, or the Western need for men with good anticommunist bonafides in Germany and Japan, or segregation in the American south. so accepting (and actively supporting) those things becomes ~serenity~, rather than, you know. collaboration. Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Jul 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 15:41
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:yeah, that was a shot at the philosophy being deployed by Bar Ran Dun, not at her. Niebuhr is a theologian of whom Bar Ran Dun is very fond, and he made his bones as the intellectual patron saint of Cold War atrocity apologia. Is this the plan to stop her from making disastrous statements or is it an attempt to scry into someone's heart?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 16:14
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Is this the plan to stop her from making disastrous statements or is it an attempt to scry into someone's heart? no, this is me responding to Bar Ran Dun's assertion that if people use her remarks as justification to attack vulnerable people no blame attaches to her. I consider this statement incorrect for the reasons I laid out above.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 16:42
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:yeah, that was a shot at the philosophy being deployed by Bar Ran Dun, not at her. Niebuhr is a theologian of whom Bar Ran Dun is very fond, and he made his bones as the intellectual patron saint of Cold War atrocity apologia. First I’m obsessed with Tillich a cursory glance at my post history going back a over a decade would make that obvious. Second The Irony of American History is a criticism of American action and was extremely relevant because an American President was obsessed with Niebuhr (along with an FBI director he appointed). Third nothing you have to say is even tangentially connected to reality or truth see below: Mooseontheloose posted:Just fyi this is the CDC's page about how to message to the LGBTQ community. Gripweed posted:That's absurd. It's completely reasonable and correct to get mad at people who aid fascists, even if they themselves are not fascists personally. Do you consider nazi collaborators to be morally neutral since it was the nazis who caused the situation in the first place? oh no I’m not being hypothetical or making a hypothetical argument about fascists. The argument about this specific topic being made Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! are incoherent, not concerned with fact or reality, and appeal to unreal romantic ideas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 16:48
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:oh no I’m not being hypothetical or making a hypothetical argument about fascists. The argument about this specific topic being made Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! are incoherent, not concerned with fact or reality, and appeal to unreal romantic ideas. if people use her words as justification to attack vulnerable people, does blame attach to her, or should we just accept these things we cannot change
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 16:59
|
|
|
The twist in the MTG tweet was to call monkeypox so she could imply the men were pedophiles. They will twist any statement and lie about it regardless. Your anger at Walensky instead of the people actually twisting her words seems misplaced.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 18:48 |
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:if people use her words as justification to attack vulnerable people, does blame attach to her, or should we just accept these things we cannot change You don't have to accept bigots and lgbt bashing as unavoidable, but you also don't have to accept the bigot's stated justification as actually being valid just because they say it. If I say I beat the poo poo out of the gender fluid person on the street because their flagrant disrespect for my way of life made me lose my poo poo, then does the blame fall on them? No, that's trans panic* and the argument you're making supports that ideology. The solution to bigotry is not going around and making sure that no one says anything that might make someone hurt vulnerable groups, it's addressing material conditions etc etc I'll grant that the words she used weren't well considered, perhaps even horrifically so (I certainly groaned/cringed when I watched), but not that she's at fault for the choices that other people make after hearing them. *i know this isn't literally literally trans panic, it's similar, if you want to use the traditional trans panic situation feel free, just assume the bigot said they had to beat up the transperson because they did (x) or acted in (x) way so he deserved it XboxPants fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Jul 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 17:12
|
|
