5 ms·

Is there some benefit here for Trump voters? I don't see it. But then again, I don't see how a trade war against the world is going to "Make America Great Aga

Is there some benefit here for Trump voters? I don't see it. But then again, I don't see how a trade war against the world is going to "Make America Great Again" either. It is much more likely to do the opposite.

actionfromafar 2y ago
They are encouraged to use abstention, that way only Bad People get STDs. Edit: I was going to say, also don't get raped, but then I remembered, only people asking for it, i.e., Bad People get raped.
- AStonesThrow 2y ago
  Is there something wrong with the practice of abstinence, or marital fidelity? I mean, sex inevitably causes babies: it’s an incontrovertible but inconvenient truth for the modern urban human species. But we were designed that way, yes?
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    I'm gay, how does my having sex create babies? But that's all beside the point, none of this is something the government should be acting to coerce. Abstinence is fine as a personal choice.
    - pseudo0 2y ago
      I fully agree with that logic, and further think that the government should also not be subsidizing risky behavior through funding for STD treatment and prevention. People should get private insurance based on a lifestyle questionnaire to ensure that all costs are being appropriately allocated based on one's risk profile. If it turns out that it's significantly cheaper to be in a long-term monogamous relationship, well, then that's just the invisible hand of the market at work!
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        Risky behavior... of having sex? Do you think anyone getting cancer should just pay for it themselves instead of society working to treat everyone of cancer? Do you think we should have taken premiums on our insurance to get COVID Boosters?\ >If it turns out that it's significantly cheaper to be in a long-term monogamous relationship 1. Why are we applying the invisible market to our bodies? Do you understand how dehumanizing that is? 2. monagamous relationships can still get STDs. Despite the name, some can also be spread by simple skin contact. So don't shake the wrong person's hand, I guess.
        AStonesThrow 2y ago
        > anyone getting cancer should just pay for it themselves instead of society working to treat everyone of cancer? False dichotomy. Furthermore, “treat” is a creepy term that tends to conjure up images of sticky lollipops and Hallowe’en bandits with loaded diapers. Some of us prefer not to subsidize immoral behaviors and activity on group health plans. But in a hypothetical parallel utopia where chemotherapy is 100% out-of-pocket, my people would welcome fewer deaths from chemotherapy, far fewer invasive biopsies & “spelunking” diagnostics, and perhaps increasing incentives to produce cures, rather than Kevorkians.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - SauciestGNU 2y ago
      Hey pal I don't want to alarm you but the people opposed to STD treatment think you are a disease and want to eradicate you. They think LGBTQIA+ identities are a social contagion that must be protected from. Project 2025 wants to criminalize queerness as obscenity so that existing in public will be a sex crime. Coincidentally, they have a criminal law plan that calls for the execution of sex criminals.
  - cko 2y ago
    Why are you having a debate here? People are trying to understand the benefit for Trump voters, they are not directly taking a position. Abstinence and fidelity are good things, and so is curing diseases.
  - icameron 2y ago
    Not if you choose that, but there is a problem attempting to coerce people into it by cutting off any fundings of STD research. And as for yourincontrovertible truth, many people have vasectomies or have contraceptives, so babies aren't actually an inevitability.
  - ahoef 2y ago
    Nothing wrong with that. This is my practice as well. But you seem to have a short-sighted view on what sex can be.
  - goku12 2y ago
    That's the wrong question to ask under these circumstances, since nobody else is imposing their beliefs on you and preventing you from practicing those. The real question is, must sex invariably lead to pregnancy when there are known ways to prevent it? Because that's precisely what you're trying to impose on others. Your answer is clear from your comment. But it's completely illogical. Nothing in the laws of nature say that humans or any other creature can't use their creativity to disrupt the natural order of things to make life more comfortable. To my knowledge, no other creature uses fire to cook food. Yet, human digestive system is uniquely adapted to that. And other animals don't cultivate food on the scale that humans do. Many of the food crop species won't even survive without human effort. I also don't see many other animals using clothes or money. So are you ready to give up those unnatural things - cultivated and cooked food, clothes, money and all modern technology? The same goes for vaccine - the natural way of diseases is for children/people to simply die on a massive scale. What's the point of going through that when we have a way of preventing it? Why must it be any different for contraception and treatment of STDs? The real issue here is the imposition of certain beliefs and moral values that are stale by a few millennia on an unwilling population.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    is there something wrong with drinking? depends on your culture, if we're being honest. There's no obvious benefit to your body to drink in the 20 century or later. unlike drinking, we have quite a few ways to enjoy sex without having babies.But some of those methods can still cause STDs. a vasectomy won't save you from herpes.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - const_cast 2y ago
    > Is there something wrong with the practice of abstinence, or marital fidelity? No, and there never has been and there are exactly zero people on Earth saying there is. The problem with this viewpoint is that as soon as people say “hey, let’s not punish people” then people crawl out of the woodwork and cry about others attacking monogamy. Sigh, nobody is attacking monogamy. You are the status quo, you can calm down now. > But we were designed that way, yes? We were “designed” in a lot of ways, many of them stupid. For example, the infant mortality rate should be closer to 50%. That’s what it’s always been. Humans are extraordinarily shit at giving birth. It’s almost impressive how bad our bodies are at pushing out babies. But it’s not, because of medicine. Even just since the 70s infant mortality has gone down significantly. Appeal to nature is lame. I don’t even know what you consider is nature, and furthermore I don’t know why it’s good. You have to explain why what you’re saying is good. You didn’t do that, people with the argument usually don’t. That means you aren’t worth listening to.
avidiax 2y ago
Yeah. Daddy is cancelling all that unnecessary and expensive insurance so you can have a higher allowance. Why were we paying for that anyway? Also, all those so-called "experts" with their agendas are out on their asses where they belong! The private market is sufficiently incentivized to keep their workers healthy and develop treatments for whatever ails them. Besides, we all know that if you just live a proper, completely monogamous lifestyle, you can't get an STD. Why should Trump voters pay for those that fall ill to their own sexual deviance? Take your pick from these (and likely more) lines of reason. Whether this will actually benefit Trump voters is an exercise left to them, but so far they seem to think it will.
- goku12 2y ago
  I just read a story about a young Trump voter who died a gruesome death because she wasn't allowed to have her foetus aborted/evacuated after it died naturally inside her and started rotting. She was waiting eagerly for her baby and had even named her. So much for 'pro-life'! Meanwhile, the private companies are so incentivized to protect their workers' health that even employed people are dying of diabetes because they still can't afford insulin - something unthinkable in other countries! Insulin injections are so old and cheap to manufacter at this point. Did you forgot to mention that the employees must also be rich? And what about jobless or homeless people? Meanwhile, about 68K people die annually of preventable diseases because their insurance claims on essential treatment get turned down by insurance companies against their doctors' determination. And that isn't charity money - it's what they paid the premiums for. How many of those thousands will be saved if you cut STD treatments, contraceptives and abortions nationwide? There are less developed and more conservative countries in the world who know better. I don't understand how such obviously dangerous decisions can be spun as benefits for the masses!
  - avidiax 2y ago
    There's a mentality that isn't uniquely American, but definitely permeates the culture, and it explains why people would support something like this against their own interests. It has facets with some combination of: * Rugged individualism: I stand on my own as an upright citizen made morally righteous by my (or my ancestor's) contributions. I have never needed nor would have accepted welfare (and all the welfare I actually did accept was not actually welfare and was mine by right). * Moral indignation: there are freeloaders, scammers and grifters everywhere that are unfairly dependent on the welfare state. There's little agreement on who these freeloaders are, other than it's not the wealthy or powerful or people like themselves. * Religiosity: America was founded as a Christian country and should return to its roots. Often, all the bad things happening in America are God's punishment, the work of the devil, or the natural consequence of wickedness and deviance. * Anti-intellectualism: Book learning and higher education are just a program of radicalization to promote moral relativism and unjust authority of "elites", and a "culture war". Moreover, all the intellectuals/elites are equally suspect, even those that claim to be helping everyone by advocating for environmentalism, cures and prevention of disease, sound economic policy, social advocacy, etc. * A desire for positional authority, both above them and for themselves: A sense that people that are rich or powerful are rightfully so. The pastor of your church is the positional moral authority. Your boss is the positional fiscal authority. The police are the criminal authority. The supreme court is the positional judicial authority. The president is the positional executive authority. A father has positional authority over his children. And (unstated), "real Americans" have positional authority over marginalized groups. Any sense that the authority must be earned, maintained or justified is rejected.
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
Promote Christian values; abortion is bad, and STDs have the stigma of promiscuous behaviour. Treating STDs and having abortions available encourages promiscuity. (not my views, oversimplified take on fundamentalists and project 2025)
- AStonesThrow 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - milesrout 2y ago
    Isn't the simple answer to that question just to look at history? It is no coincidence that the rising availability of contraception coincided with the swinging 60s.
    - youngtaff 2y ago
      And what contraception facilitated the orgies of Roman times?
      - RealityVoid 2y ago
        Silphium? /s
      - ahoef 2y ago
        They did not follow modern Christian values. Sex was looked on differently, as was parenthood, and adoption. Also, contraception did exist in those times.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    If we look back in time we find that promiscuous behavior and dangerous back-alley abortions existed well before STI treatment and safe, legal abortions. But no, I don't value "chastity" or -- to phrase it more accurately -- denying women control over what happens with their own bodies. People should have lots of sex! Sex is great!
Braxton1980 2y ago
If pro life people really cared that millions of babies were murdered every year there would be assassinations against abortion providers and bombings of clinics. It's about pushing Judeo-Christian morality. Punishing women for having sex outside the goal of procreation. This has the same goal, STDs are a punishment for loose morals. Preventing or curing them works against that punishment.
- Someone 2y ago
  > If pro life people really cared that millions of babies were murdered every year there would be assassinations against abortion providers and bombings of clinics. Are you claiming there aren’t any? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_...: “In the United States, violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eleven people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, a police officer, two people (unclear of their connection), and a clinic escort. […] According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, 13 wounded,[I 30] 100 butyric acid stink bomb attacks, 373 physical invasions, 41 bombings, 655 anthrax threats, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers. […] According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs")”
  - p3rls 2y ago
    I completely disagree with the parent post's politics but he's right-- abortion providers are frequently compared to Hitler and regularly come out with higher numbers too. If these are your true beliefs, you are a coward for not taking action.
  - Braxton1980 2y ago
    I meant to say the actions against them would be more numerous or meaningingful. I should have been more clear but basically I'm waving off how little has been done by tens of millions who "believe" millions of babies are being murdered. Literally the worst crime that can ever occur, murder, against the most innocent and defenseless humans, babies Vandalism and stink bombs are what bored teens do, trespassing is a person refusing to leave, and bomb threats are also called in by students hoping to avoid an exam. As for what matters, even being nice and assuming all the arson crimes were serious.. The 41 bombings and 173 arson events over 48 years in all of North America is nothing
vkou 2y ago
> Is there some benefit here for Trump voters? They get to punish woke science. That's about how much thought they put it into. There's no 5-dimensional chess at play.
- busyant 2y ago
  > They get to punish woke science. Imagine how all the chemists who study cis/trans isomerization feel right now ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis%E2%80%93trans_isomerism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis%E2%80%93trans_isomerism As someone who studied an cis/trans isomerase decades ago in grad school, I say this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but not completely.
kelnos 2y ago
> Is there some benefit here for Trump voters? Sure, stuff like this will disproportionately affect gay men. The average Trump voter things homosexuality is a sin.
af78 2y ago
"Make America Great Again!" feels more and more like "hold my beer!" or "YOLO!".

actionfromafar 2y ago

They are encouraged to use abstention, that way only Bad People get STDs. Edit: I was going to say, also don't get raped, but then I remembered, only people asking for it, i.e., Bad People get raped.

AStonesThrow 2y ago
Is there something wrong with the practice of abstinence, or marital fidelity? I mean, sex inevitably causes babies: it’s an incontrovertible but inconvenient truth for the modern urban human species. But we were designed that way, yes?
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  I'm gay, how does my having sex create babies? But that's all beside the point, none of this is something the government should be acting to coerce. Abstinence is fine as a personal choice.
  - pseudo0 2y ago
    I fully agree with that logic, and further think that the government should also not be subsidizing risky behavior through funding for STD treatment and prevention. People should get private insurance based on a lifestyle questionnaire to ensure that all costs are being appropriately allocated based on one's risk profile. If it turns out that it's significantly cheaper to be in a long-term monogamous relationship, well, then that's just the invisible hand of the market at work!
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      Risky behavior... of having sex? Do you think anyone getting cancer should just pay for it themselves instead of society working to treat everyone of cancer? Do you think we should have taken premiums on our insurance to get COVID Boosters?\ >If it turns out that it's significantly cheaper to be in a long-term monogamous relationship 1. Why are we applying the invisible market to our bodies? Do you understand how dehumanizing that is? 2. monagamous relationships can still get STDs. Despite the name, some can also be spread by simple skin contact. So don't shake the wrong person's hand, I guess.
      - AStonesThrow 2y ago
        > anyone getting cancer should just pay for it themselves instead of society working to treat everyone of cancer? False dichotomy. Furthermore, “treat” is a creepy term that tends to conjure up images of sticky lollipops and Hallowe’en bandits with loaded diapers. Some of us prefer not to subsidize immoral behaviors and activity on group health plans. But in a hypothetical parallel utopia where chemotherapy is 100% out-of-pocket, my people would welcome fewer deaths from chemotherapy, far fewer invasive biopsies & “spelunking” diagnostics, and perhaps increasing incentives to produce cures, rather than Kevorkians.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - SauciestGNU 2y ago
    Hey pal I don't want to alarm you but the people opposed to STD treatment think you are a disease and want to eradicate you. They think LGBTQIA+ identities are a social contagion that must be protected from. Project 2025 wants to criminalize queerness as obscenity so that existing in public will be a sex crime. Coincidentally, they have a criminal law plan that calls for the execution of sex criminals.
- cko 2y ago
  Why are you having a debate here? People are trying to understand the benefit for Trump voters, they are not directly taking a position. Abstinence and fidelity are good things, and so is curing diseases.
- icameron 2y ago
  Not if you choose that, but there is a problem attempting to coerce people into it by cutting off any fundings of STD research. And as for yourincontrovertible truth, many people have vasectomies or have contraceptives, so babies aren't actually an inevitability.
- ahoef 2y ago
  Nothing wrong with that. This is my practice as well. But you seem to have a short-sighted view on what sex can be.
- goku12 2y ago
  That's the wrong question to ask under these circumstances, since nobody else is imposing their beliefs on you and preventing you from practicing those. The real question is, must sex invariably lead to pregnancy when there are known ways to prevent it? Because that's precisely what you're trying to impose on others. Your answer is clear from your comment. But it's completely illogical. Nothing in the laws of nature say that humans or any other creature can't use their creativity to disrupt the natural order of things to make life more comfortable. To my knowledge, no other creature uses fire to cook food. Yet, human digestive system is uniquely adapted to that. And other animals don't cultivate food on the scale that humans do. Many of the food crop species won't even survive without human effort. I also don't see many other animals using clothes or money. So are you ready to give up those unnatural things - cultivated and cooked food, clothes, money and all modern technology? The same goes for vaccine - the natural way of diseases is for children/people to simply die on a massive scale. What's the point of going through that when we have a way of preventing it? Why must it be any different for contraception and treatment of STDs? The real issue here is the imposition of certain beliefs and moral values that are stale by a few millennia on an unwilling population.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  is there something wrong with drinking? depends on your culture, if we're being honest. There's no obvious benefit to your body to drink in the 20 century or later. unlike drinking, we have quite a few ways to enjoy sex without having babies.But some of those methods can still cause STDs. a vasectomy won't save you from herpes.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- const_cast 2y ago
  > Is there something wrong with the practice of abstinence, or marital fidelity? No, and there never has been and there are exactly zero people on Earth saying there is. The problem with this viewpoint is that as soon as people say “hey, let’s not punish people” then people crawl out of the woodwork and cry about others attacking monogamy. Sigh, nobody is attacking monogamy. You are the status quo, you can calm down now. > But we were designed that way, yes? We were “designed” in a lot of ways, many of them stupid. For example, the infant mortality rate should be closer to 50%. That’s what it’s always been. Humans are extraordinarily shit at giving birth. It’s almost impressive how bad our bodies are at pushing out babies. But it’s not, because of medicine. Even just since the 70s infant mortality has gone down significantly. Appeal to nature is lame. I don’t even know what you consider is nature, and furthermore I don’t know why it’s good. You have to explain why what you’re saying is good. You didn’t do that, people with the argument usually don’t. That means you aren’t worth listening to.

avidiax 2y ago

Yeah. Daddy is cancelling all that unnecessary and expensive insurance so you can have a higher allowance. Why were we paying for that anyway? Also, all those so-called "experts" with their agendas are out on their asses where they belong! The private market is sufficiently incentivized to keep their workers healthy and develop treatments for whatever ails them. Besides, we all know that if you just live a proper, completely monogamous lifestyle, you can't get an STD. Why should Trump voters pay for those that fall ill to their own sexual deviance? Take your pick from these (and likely more) lines of reason. Whether this will actually benefit Trump voters is an exercise left to them, but so far they seem to think it will.

goku12 2y ago
I just read a story about a young Trump voter who died a gruesome death because she wasn't allowed to have her foetus aborted/evacuated after it died naturally inside her and started rotting. She was waiting eagerly for her baby and had even named her. So much for 'pro-life'! Meanwhile, the private companies are so incentivized to protect their workers' health that even employed people are dying of diabetes because they still can't afford insulin - something unthinkable in other countries! Insulin injections are so old and cheap to manufacter at this point. Did you forgot to mention that the employees must also be rich? And what about jobless or homeless people? Meanwhile, about 68K people die annually of preventable diseases because their insurance claims on essential treatment get turned down by insurance companies against their doctors' determination. And that isn't charity money - it's what they paid the premiums for. How many of those thousands will be saved if you cut STD treatments, contraceptives and abortions nationwide? There are less developed and more conservative countries in the world who know better. I don't understand how such obviously dangerous decisions can be spun as benefits for the masses!
- avidiax 2y ago
  There's a mentality that isn't uniquely American, but definitely permeates the culture, and it explains why people would support something like this against their own interests. It has facets with some combination of: * Rugged individualism: I stand on my own as an upright citizen made morally righteous by my (or my ancestor's) contributions. I have never needed nor would have accepted welfare (and all the welfare I actually did accept was not actually welfare and was mine by right). * Moral indignation: there are freeloaders, scammers and grifters everywhere that are unfairly dependent on the welfare state. There's little agreement on who these freeloaders are, other than it's not the wealthy or powerful or people like themselves. * Religiosity: America was founded as a Christian country and should return to its roots. Often, all the bad things happening in America are God's punishment, the work of the devil, or the natural consequence of wickedness and deviance. * Anti-intellectualism: Book learning and higher education are just a program of radicalization to promote moral relativism and unjust authority of "elites", and a "culture war". Moreover, all the intellectuals/elites are equally suspect, even those that claim to be helping everyone by advocating for environmentalism, cures and prevention of disease, sound economic policy, social advocacy, etc. * A desire for positional authority, both above them and for themselves: A sense that people that are rich or powerful are rightfully so. The pastor of your church is the positional moral authority. Your boss is the positional fiscal authority. The police are the criminal authority. The supreme court is the positional judicial authority. The president is the positional executive authority. A father has positional authority over his children. And (unstated), "real Americans" have positional authority over marginalized groups. Any sense that the authority must be earned, maintained or justified is rejected.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago

Promote Christian values; abortion is bad, and STDs have the stigma of promiscuous behaviour. Treating STDs and having abortions available encourages promiscuity. (not my views, oversimplified take on fundamentalists and project 2025)

AStonesThrow 2y ago
[flagged]
- milesrout 2y ago
  Isn't the simple answer to that question just to look at history? It is no coincidence that the rising availability of contraception coincided with the swinging 60s.
  - youngtaff 2y ago
    And what contraception facilitated the orgies of Roman times?
    - RealityVoid 2y ago
      Silphium? /s
    - ahoef 2y ago
      They did not follow modern Christian values. Sex was looked on differently, as was parenthood, and adoption. Also, contraception did exist in those times.
- kelnos 2y ago
  If we look back in time we find that promiscuous behavior and dangerous back-alley abortions existed well before STI treatment and safe, legal abortions. But no, I don't value "chastity" or -- to phrase it more accurately -- denying women control over what happens with their own bodies. People should have lots of sex! Sex is great!

Braxton1980 2y ago

If pro life people really cared that millions of babies were murdered every year there would be assassinations against abortion providers and bombings of clinics. It's about pushing Judeo-Christian morality. Punishing women for having sex outside the goal of procreation. This has the same goal, STDs are a punishment for loose morals. Preventing or curing them works against that punishment.

Someone 2y ago
> If pro life people really cared that millions of babies were murdered every year there would be assassinations against abortion providers and bombings of clinics. Are you claiming there aren’t any? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_...: “In the United States, violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eleven people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, a police officer, two people (unclear of their connection), and a clinic escort. […] According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, 13 wounded,[I 30] 100 butyric acid stink bomb attacks, 373 physical invasions, 41 bombings, 655 anthrax threats, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers. […] According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs")”
- p3rls 2y ago
  I completely disagree with the parent post's politics but he's right-- abortion providers are frequently compared to Hitler and regularly come out with higher numbers too. If these are your true beliefs, you are a coward for not taking action.
- Braxton1980 2y ago
  I meant to say the actions against them would be more numerous or meaningingful. I should have been more clear but basically I'm waving off how little has been done by tens of millions who "believe" millions of babies are being murdered. Literally the worst crime that can ever occur, murder, against the most innocent and defenseless humans, babies Vandalism and stink bombs are what bored teens do, trespassing is a person refusing to leave, and bomb threats are also called in by students hoping to avoid an exam. As for what matters, even being nice and assuming all the arson crimes were serious.. The 41 bombings and 173 arson events over 48 years in all of North America is nothing

vkou 2y ago

> Is there some benefit here for Trump voters? They get to punish woke science. That's about how much thought they put it into. There's no 5-dimensional chess at play.

busyant 2y ago
> They get to punish woke science. Imagine how all the chemists who study cis/trans isomerization feel right now ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis%E2%80%93trans_isomerism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis%E2%80%93trans_isomerism As someone who studied an cis/trans isomerase decades ago in grad school, I say this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but not completely.

kelnos 2y ago

> Is there some benefit here for Trump voters? Sure, stuff like this will disproportionately affect gay men. The average Trump voter things homosexuality is a sin.

af78 2y ago

"Make America Great Again!" feels more and more like "hold my beer!" or "YOLO!".