I’m going to turn your own shit posting on ignore. Goodbye.
1 Like
I have not responded to churchill today, have not made any disparaging comments about him today - no comments about him in fact, nor have I made any comments today about whether he was or was not giving a take about the topic at hand as opposed to sharing news. I simply commented on the topic at hand.
Churchill: Posts benign BBC article about monkeypox.
CN: Media blaming gays is bad.
You: Here’s a bunch of obvious points and I don’t trust the media to get nuance right regarding gays and monkeypox.
The topic at hand was planted.
1 Like
That’s a legitimate post worth discussing.
This was not:
CN in direct response to Churchill’s post:
Here is verbatim the entirety of what the BBC article posted by Churchill stated regarding gay men and monkeypox:
How did this article blame gays? It didn’t. That was CN opening the topic by backhandedly scolding Churchill for not being skeptical of something that wasn’t actually there.
I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but CN’s post could be interpreted in either of these ways:
What the bbc is doing is
- blaming gay men
- being extremely skeptical of blaming gay men
There may be some context above that makes it clearer which he intended (I’m guessing the second one), but I didn’t read the article and barely have read the posts in this thread.
Carry on.
It’s assuredly 1). Otherwise the final sentence “Long story of that not going well” makes no sense.
As a note, this is why I give church a bit more leeway - he posted a completely benign article, and still gets shit on by CN.
2 Likes
It could be. Don’t know and don’t really care.
That’s an odd takeaway after caring enough to posit about his intentions in your very previous post.
I don’t know how much you follow unstuck, but no one thinks less of him here than I do. We get into it all the time.
I legit don’t care at all. JonnyA seems to be following this more closely, so I’m perfectly happy to adopt his opinion as my new default if that makes you feel better.
1 Like
Okay, I read more into your ‘dont care’ than I should have. I understand you now, my bad. Thanks for clarifying.
Aww, poor you. Couldn’t just wrongfully chastise unpopular posters without someone calling it out. How pathetic… of everyone else but you of course.
1 Like
can discourse make mods unignorable?
Look y’all, maybe I should give the BBC the benefit of the doubt, but this kind of talk about gay men spreading a disease is garbage and fucking stupid.
If you wrote an article about a rise in crime, and just offhandedly said that black men are much more likely to commit a crime, you would recognize that immediately as racism right?
The same kind of thing happens with gay men and public health. Presenting the information we have as if there’s some sort of special concern for gay men isn’t new. It happened with HIV to great harm to everyone. It happens with all sorts of other diseases and is clearly stigmatizing. There is literally nothing to suggest that gay men are some sort of special risk class.
That’s why you see public health agencies that actually give a shit warn about using the exact type of language the BBC uses. So if you want to nitpick because you’re bored, I’ll edit my statement to, “The BBC clearly contributes to stigma and bigotry against gay men with their article.” The criticism of me here is clearly bad faith or based in ignorance.
1 Like
This is some juicy bait right here.
1 Like
Now all you need to do is extrapolate and BINGO!!!
1 Like
Now the thread has Monkeypox. Great.
2 Likes
1 Like
Mom tells me she’s about a 2 on the 1-10 concern scale for this monkeypox outbreak, although I think having lived though a polio epidemic, her perspective of how bad shit can get is skewed toward the really bad end of things. Getting the smallpox vaccine is supposed to provide good protection; apparently I was one of the last batch of kids to get inoculated for smallpox.