4 ms·

> Every thread on HN about HIV/AIDS seems to attract at least one person who feels obliged to say something about how promiscuous gay people are. I don't think

> Every thread on HN about HIV/AIDS seems to attract at least one person who feels obliged to say something about how promiscuous gay people are. I don't think these comments often come from a good place. Just the one? If only. Every time there is a story on HN that is even tangentially related to either HIV or LGBTQ+ sexual health, it inevitably devolves into a morass of misinformation and thinly-veiled homophobia. There are different degrees of it - some is presented in a more "civil" veneer, which helps it stay upvoted, but at its core, it's all coming from the same place. Public health professionals who specialize in HIV and LGBTQ+ sexual health are actually pretty unanimous in their position on this topic, but somehow that never sways these folks (which should be a pretty good sign that they're not arguing in good faith).

foldr 3y ago
I was understating, for sure. Civility (or the veneer thereof) is HN’s major exploit vector.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
[flagged]
- foldr 3y ago
  Knowing what public health professionals think about this topic is pretty much table stakes for being able to make any sensible kind of contribution to the discussion. Otherwise it is like arguing the finer points of Rust lifetimes with people who couldn’t write ‘Hello World’ in Python. In this case I think the relevant position is widely known. Supporting people to have safe sex works, whereas shaming them for having more than some vaguely specified maximum number of acceptable sexual partners does not work.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - foldr 3y ago
      HN isn’t the place to argue about public health policy in relation to HIV/AIDS unless you have something new or interesting to add to the topic. Literally every time this topic comes up on HN we have stacks of comments making the same repetitive talking points about gay male promiscuity. Quite apart from the rather odious and obvious agenda behind these comments (which surely don’t stem from any serious concern about gay men’s health), this is incredibly tedious. I might also add that your point, such as it is, has SFA to do with TFA - which is largely focused on Africa.
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        I've never seen someone use HN guidelines to argue they can't post a link clarifying their position.

foldr 3y ago

I was understating, for sure. Civility (or the veneer thereof) is HN’s major exploit vector.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago

[flagged]

foldr 3y ago
Knowing what public health professionals think about this topic is pretty much table stakes for being able to make any sensible kind of contribution to the discussion. Otherwise it is like arguing the finer points of Rust lifetimes with people who couldn’t write ‘Hello World’ in Python. In this case I think the relevant position is widely known. Supporting people to have safe sex works, whereas shaming them for having more than some vaguely specified maximum number of acceptable sexual partners does not work.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - foldr 3y ago
    HN isn’t the place to argue about public health policy in relation to HIV/AIDS unless you have something new or interesting to add to the topic. Literally every time this topic comes up on HN we have stacks of comments making the same repetitive talking points about gay male promiscuity. Quite apart from the rather odious and obvious agenda behind these comments (which surely don’t stem from any serious concern about gay men’s health), this is incredibly tedious. I might also add that your point, such as it is, has SFA to do with TFA - which is largely focused on Africa.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      I've never seen someone use HN guidelines to argue they can't post a link clarifying their position.