Funny events in anti-woke world

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,293
5,908
118
Country
United Kingdom
Do you think the Ministerial Cabinet Committee on AIDS existed against the will of the Prime Minister? Did that accidentally slip by her?
We were talking about the broadcast. I take it from your effort to shift the conversation that you've conceded she did in fact oppose the broadcast, and those other aspects of the awareness campaign I cited.

It's not a defense of the statement, no. It is a defense against your accusations though. You blame conservative politics for the spread of AIDS, but every reason you have to believe that is false.
You've not shown the falsehood of a single one yet. My reason was that the Catholic Church shared harmful misinformation. You've now acknowledged that was in fact true, and your sole defence is that the head of the Pontifical Council was catastrophically ignorant rather than malicious. But the harm of the misinformation remains, doesn't it? So my reason for ascribing blame remains.

If they cannot be bothered to research the information before spreading severe, life-endangering allegations, then that's unforgivable, fatal negligence.

It's not couth, that's for sure. But he's mocking a homophobe. That comment is an insult because the person he's saying it to hates gay people. People here do literally the same thing all the time, should anyone in public say something negative about homosexuality, a pile of people is at the ready to accuse them of being gay. I don't disagree that it's not the most professional thing to do as a government representative, but again, it's a defense against your accusations. You believe the Raegan administration shut down comments and suppressed information on AIDS, but your evidence is them mocking a homophobe.
Actually, the relevant part of the exchange is how they point-blank refuse to answer the question. The fact they find it hilarious to ask people if they have AIDS is indicative of their attitude, but not the crux of this.

And you are very willing to sidestep the serious answer about the president being briefed and considering it a priority and asking for research funds, and skip straight to whatever you think may best justify your poorly founded opinions.
Asking for *a reduction in research funds.
 

Baffle

Elite Member
Oct 22, 2016
3,467
2,749
118
Q-Anon Shaman wants to be Speaker. Not the worst platform tho.


Also, Jim Jordan wants the seat too. I propose a no holds barred cage match between it and this guy on the House floor. Winner gets the job.
I hear Laurence Fox is suddenly available too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,207
118
Do you have any reason to believe what you do? You expect me to rebut the accusations of negligence, but do those accusations have any real basis?
Yes, as anyone who holistically read up on the matter in detail would know.

Reagan had no interest in AIDS at all, leaving it to spread pretty much unaddressed for at least five, painful years. I am not sure there was a single substantative statement about AIDS until 1986, despite plentiful warnings from healthcare professionals and other groups. Attempts to raise funding were routinely obstructed or reduced. It wasn't until AIDS finally became too big to ignore and starting hitting the headlines that the US executive started to take action. Or perhaps it was the announcement of infection and later death of his fellow actor Rock Hudson, because then it had a personal meaning to him.
 

thebobmaster

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
2,143
2,107
118
Country
United States
Yes, as anyone who holistically read up on the matter in detail would know.

Reagan had no interest in AIDS at all, leaving it to spread pretty much unaddressed for at least five, painful years. I am not sure there was a single substantative statement about AIDS until 1986, despite plentiful warnings from healthcare professionals and other groups. Attempts to raise funding were routinely obstructed or reduced. It wasn't until AIDS finally became too big to ignore and starting hitting the headlines that the US executive started to take action. Or perhaps it was the announcement of infection and later death of his fellow actor Rock Hudson, because then it had a personal meaning to him.
Rock Hudson's announcement was really the game changer in general, not just for Reagan. Even in the public, his announcement that he was infected changed it from being "the gay plague" to "The disease that killed Rock Hudson". Now they had the face and name of someone who had died from it. They knew someone who had died from it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,597
930
118
Country
USA
We were talking about the broadcast. I take it from your effort to shift the conversation that you've conceded she did in fact oppose the broadcast, and those other aspects of the awareness campaign I cited.
It's a necessary shift. I'm sure she also opposed burning the word AIDS onto the surface of the moon. One can oppose methods while supporting the goal. She supported methods that largely accomplished that goal. You can't judge someone for not having done literally every possible thing.
But the harm of the misinformation remains, doesn't it? So my reason for ascribing blame remains.
You can't demonstrate harm either. The vague message without the specific mechanism is accurate, and nobody would listen to only the wrong part. The incorrect understanding still reaches the proper conclusion.
Asking for *a reduction in research funds.
Listen to the audio.
Yes, as anyone who holistically read up on the matter in detail would know.
Holistically? You must be joking. You've read the same propaganda regurgitated through different channels, that's not holistic in any way.
Reagan had no interest in AIDS at all, leaving it to spread pretty much unaddressed for at least five, painful years. I am not sure there was a single substantative statement about AIDS until 1986, despite plentiful warnings from healthcare professionals and other groups. Attempts to raise funding were routinely obstructed or reduced. It wasn't until AIDS finally became too big to ignore and starting hitting the headlines that the US executive started to take action. Or perhaps it was the announcement of infection and later death of his fellow actor Rock Hudson, because then it had a personal meaning to him.
In post #12,193, I posted audio of Reagan's press secretary including some in 1983 stating Reagan had been briefed, considered it a priority, and was directing (I think) $12,000,000 towards research on it. You claim, without evidence, that he did nothing of consequence til 1986. I choose to believe my ears over your post. I understand you are repeating what you've read, but if you want to talk about nitpicking and technical truths, Reagan not talking about AIDS is a huge "well technically..." moment. Did he make statements about HIV? Yes. Did his administration acknowledge and respond to AIDS? Yes. But did he personally make a statement using the word AIDS prominently? Not til 1987, and apparently that's what's important. Years of action are irrelevant if you don't say Simon says first.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,293
5,908
118
Country
United Kingdom
It's a necessary shift. I'm sure she also opposed burning the word AIDS onto the surface of the moon. One can oppose methods while supporting the goal. She supported methods that largely accomplished that goal. You can't judge someone for not having done literally every possible thing.
It's not that she "didn't do literally every possible thing", though, is it? She opposed pretty much everything the ministers put forward-- and the eventual public awareness campaign run by Norman Fowler was comprised of elements that were included despite her opposition. Had she had her way, the public awareness campaign would have been practically nonexistent.

You can't demonstrate harm either. The vague message without the specific mechanism is accurate, and nobody would listen to only the wrong part. The incorrect understanding still reaches the proper conclusion.
No, it absolutely does not reach the proper conclusion. The conclusion is 'don't use condoms, because HIV gets through them anyway'. That is categorically an insanely dangerous message-- the proper use of condoms drastically reduces transmission risks, and here's the head of the Pontifical Council telling people they don't work and don't use em.

"Can't demonstrate harm"... you really will cook up some complete bollocks to justify the shite these people said and did.

Listen to the audio.
Are you denying that Reagan's initial request was for $86m? And that that's a lower figure than $96m?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,597
930
118
Country
USA
It's not that she "didn't do literally every possible thing", though, is it? She opposed pretty much everything the ministers put forward-- and the eventual public awareness campaign run by Norman Fowler was comprised of elements that were included despite her opposition. Had she had her way, the public awareness campaign would have been practically nonexistent.
You are making a bold interpretation of the information available to you. They wanted a tv campaign with her, she didn't want to be the face of it, they did the tv campaign without her. They wanted leaflets to include warnings and descriptions of "risky sex", she didn't like that specific part, but otherwise she seems to have supported leafleting. You are taking opposition to specifics as opposition to the goal, but it just isn't true.
The conclusion is 'don't use condoms, because HIV gets through them anyway'.
That's not how logic works. If someone said "a seatbelt is insufficient to protect you from injury or death, you need to drive safer", how many people do you imagine hear that and stop wearing seatbelts? I see no reason to believe that any single person heard what he said and acted on it in that way.
Are you denying that Reagan's initial request was for $86m? And that that's a lower figure than $96m?
No, I'm referencing an event 3 years earlier than that. Listen to the audio.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,293
5,908
118
Country
United Kingdom
You are making a bold interpretation of the information available to you. They wanted a tv campaign with her, she didn't want to be the face of it, they did the tv campaign without her. They wanted leaflets to include warnings and descriptions of "risky sex", she didn't like that specific part, but otherwise she seems to have supported leafleting. You are taking opposition to specifics as opposition to the goal, but it just isn't true.
No, she opposed leafletting at all when it was first suggested ("My first reaction is against it", in her words) then finally gave approval three months later.

The TV campaign bit is a subtle shifted goalpost. We've been talking about a Ministerial Broadcast, not just an ad campaign. Norman Fowler wanted a ministerial broadcast and Margaret Thatcher opposed it, and no ministerial broadcast went out about AIDS as a direct result.

That's not how logic works. If someone said "a seatbelt is insufficient to protect you from injury or death, you need to drive safer", how many people do you imagine hear that and stop wearing seatbelts? I see no reason to believe that any single person heard what he said and acted on it in that way.
You're still completely misrepresenting what was actually said. If someone said, "wearing seatbelts cannot protect you in the event of a collision, and actually makes you less safe"-- which is analogous to what the Cardinal said-- then yes, that would realistically convince people not to use them.

No, I'm referencing an event 3 years earlier than that. Listen to the audio.
The $12m? You think that negates the suggestion to cut the AIDS budget in 1986?
 
Last edited:

XsjadoBlaydette

~s•o√r∆rπy°`
May 26, 2022
1,084
1,371
118
Clear 'n Present Danger
Country
Must
Gender
Disappear
Such a brave man. The personal responsibility being taken is off the charts.



Not sure what to do if you believe the FEMA system test is going to turn everyone into zombies? We have our top experts to guide you through the required protective measures.




Not sure what to do if your conspiracy theory about FEMA system test turning ppl into zombies didn't happen? Our top experts are here to help you pivot blamelessly to greener pastures.




This was inevitable, been saying for ages the modern conspiracy madness will be opportunistically seized upon by ppl like Tories, who don't have any real platform (not that it matters with our fucking press) but will need fresh scapegoats and distractions one way or another.

 
Last edited:

Baffle

Elite Member
Oct 22, 2016
3,467
2,749
118
Just found out Richard Ayoade is married to Lydia Fox, sister to Laurence Fox. Cant imagine what those festive family get togethers must be like. Well, for now am imagining a 'Ready or Not' style night of "games" until proven otherwise.
I assume Ayoade says he's got to work every single year and picks up a shift at the roughest bar in town and considers himself lucky.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,597
930
118
Country
USA
No, she opposed leafletting at all when it was first suggested ("My first reaction is against it", in her words) then finally gave approval three months later.
Against what? Was that a response to the idea of leaflets, or did they show her leaflets with specifics already printed?
The TV campaign bit is a subtle shifted goalpost. We've been talking about a Ministerial Broadcast, not just an ad campaign. Norman Fowler wanted a ministerial broadcast and Margaret Thatcher opposed it, and no ministerial broadcast went out about AIDS as a direct result.
A ministerial broadcast is a subset of tv campaigns. That isn't a shift at all.
You're still completely misrepresenting what was actually said. If someone said, "wearing seatbelts cannot protect you in the event of a collision, and actually makes you less safe"-- which is analogous to what the Cardinal said-- then yes, that would realistically convince people not to use them.
My analogy is accurate, yours is not. Though since he was speaking in analogy, we can use his. He compared condoms to cigarette filters, which do not protect you from the dangers of smoking, suggesting condoms should have warning labels like cigarettes to tell you what the risks are. Condoms are only like 90% effective at preventing HIV transmission. 10% risk seems worth communicating.

If he believed condoms made people less safe, he'd have called for a ban. What he, and others like him, have said about the potential of condoms to exacerbate the spread of STIs is that a false sense of security can be worse than no protection. And it's not wrong. Perfect and consistent condom usage with promiscuous behavior statistically spreads HIV more than committed monogamy without condoms. I'm sure you'd say both can be recommended, but God forbid a Catholic suggest chastity or monogamy, cause that apparently kills gay people in your eyes.
The $12m? You think that negates the suggestion to cut the AIDS budget in 1986?
There was no cut, early money is worth more than later money, and that amount is more than the difference in the theoretical budgets anyway.

Sometimes I wonder if you're just trying to get me to declare victory with how ineffective your rebuttals are.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,293
5,908
118
Country
United Kingdom
Against what? Was that a response to the idea of leaflets, or did they show her leaflets with specifics already printed?
Against the idea of a countrywide leafletting campaign.

A ministerial broadcast is a subset of tv campaigns. That isn't a shift at all.
Ministerial Broadcasts are a specific thing. They are used in UK politics sparingly, and always on matters of great import: nationwide lockdowns, war, epidemics. Their use carries weight and import that a mere ad campaign does not.

My analogy is accurate, yours is not. Though since he was speaking in analogy, we can use his. He compared condoms to cigarette filters, which do not protect you from the dangers of smoking, suggesting condoms should have warning labels like cigarettes to tell you what the risks are. Condoms are only like 90% effective at preventing HIV transmission. 10% risk seems worth communicating.

If he believed condoms made people less safe, he'd have called for a ban. What he, and others like him, have said about the potential of condoms to exacerbate the spread of STIs is that a false sense of security can be worse than no protection. And it's not wrong. Perfect and consistent condom usage with promiscuous behavior statistically spreads HIV more than committed monogamy without condoms. I'm sure you'd say both can be recommended, but God forbid a Catholic suggest chastity or monogamy, cause that apparently kills gay people in your eyes.
What absolute horseshit this is. You're reimagining what he said to be far more palatable, conveniently ommitting or rewriting all the dangerous misinformation bits.

You first presented an analogy in which he didn't dispute the efficacy of condoms at all-- and now you're insisting that was accurate. But that simply doesn't fly: he said they don't do anything to stop AIDS.

In your new analogy, you've substituted his complete dismissal of their function with a... mere warning that they don't offer 100% protection, and not to be overconfident in them.

That's. Not. What. He. Said. He said they do not stop AIDS at all. If we were to compare it with cigarette filters, the correct analogy would be him stating that cigarette filters do nothing to the smoke that goes through a cigarette, so there's zero point in having them.

This just shows that regardless of what a Catholic cardinal says, you'd defend it to the hilt. Doesn't matter what it is. If he stated that vaccines don't do anything to fight smallpox, you'd be here insisting that he was just trying to warn people against overconfidence and guide people away from risky behaviour. It's not about accuracy or anything principled: you've just got to defend the brand.

There was no cut, early money is worth more than later money, and that amount is more than the difference in the theoretical budgets anyway.
There was no cut... because Reagan's suggested cut was rebuffed. So again, you're attributing credit to Reagan for the fact that Congress refused his budget. That's some moon logic.

It's always hilarious when you attempt to just declare victory, without having demonstrated a single point or convinced anyone.
 
Last edited:

Kwak

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2014
2,212
1,717
118
Country
4




Jesus Christ, as depicted in the fake courtroom sketch Trump reposted. Photo: @dom_lucre/X

While Donald Trump is responsible for unhinged, incoherent content on Truth Social every single day, an image he posted on Monday evening stood out for being especially offensive and delusional. Tucked between video clips of Trump’s remarks hours earlier outside a Manhattan courtroom, where he is being tried for fraud in a civil lawsuit brought by New York attorney general Letitia James, was a screenshot of a tweet from user Dom Lucre showing a fake courtroom sketch of Jesus by Trump’s side.

The image is ridiculous, blasphemous, and confusing. Is Jesus supposed to be Trump’s co-defendant or his attorney? Does the caption “nobody could have made it this far alone” mean Trump being hauled before the court for his decades of alleged business fraud is part of some divine plan? And who is this “Dom Lucre” anyway?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Absent

And twice is the only way to live.
Jan 25, 2023
1,594
1,552
118
Country
Switzerland
Gender
The boring one




Jesus Christ, as depicted in the fake courtroom sketch Trump reposted. Photo: @dom_lucre/X

While Donald Trump is responsible for unhinged, incoherent content on Truth Social every single day, an image he posted on Monday evening stood out for being especially offensive and delusional. Tucked between video clips of Trump’s remarks hours earlier outside a Manhattan courtroom, where he is being tried for fraud in a civil lawsuit brought by New York attorney general Letitia James, was a screenshot of a tweet from user Dom Lucre showing a fake courtroom sketch of Jesus by Trump’s side.

The image is ridiculous, blasphemous, and confusing. Is Jesus supposed to be Trump’s co-defendant or his attorney? Does the caption “nobody could have made it this far alone” mean Trump being hauled before the court for his decades of alleged business fraud is part of some divine plan? And who is this “Dom Lucre” anyway?
I'm not good in geography. Is Galilee in Ireland or in Norway ?