On the one hand, we don’t want doctors attacked merely for pointing out that African-Americans are statistically more likely to get lupus than white people (IIRC, that is true.)
On the other hand, there is clearly a difference between someone who mournfully says, “6 million Jews died in the Holocaust,” and someone who gloatingly says, “Yay, 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust!” So tone and attitude do make a huge difference.
So there is no “back when”, unless you’re just talking about America, and not just talking about gay males. Otherwise 100% accurate.
Of course there is a back when.
Today, AIDS is primarily a disease of men who have sex with men in the sense that this accounts for a majority of transmissions. But heterosexual contact accounts for about a quarter (roughly four times that of IV drug abusers, contrary to your outdated characterization). In the 1980’s, heterosexual contact was a much smaller percentage of transmission known to medical authorities, so discourse around AIDS was much more closely connected to sexual orientation than it is today.
And, as acknowledged by your “in America,” much of AIDS education is now focused abroad, especially sub-Saharan Africa where around 70% of people living with AIDS live. AIDS is principally transmitted through heterosexual contact in that region.
No, there is not.
It has always been the case in America that men who have sex with men account for a majority of transmissions.
[QUOTE=iandyiiii]
So there is no “back when”, unless you’re just talking about America, and not just talking about gay males.
[/QUOTE]
You are correct - if I had posted something other than what I did, I might have been wrong. Fortunately I posted what I did.
Regards,
Shodan
What you posted (the first part) was inaccurate, since there was a “back when” – AIDS is not “primarily a gay male disease” any more, but at one point it was considered so. Your ‘there is no “back when”’ was inaccurate – for one thing it assumed the prior poster was exclusively talking about AIDS in America (and there was no indication he was), and for another thing you mentioned several groups in addition to “gay males”.
Not a big deal. The rest of your post seemed fine.
As someone possessed of the uniquely 21st century superpower of actually owning a dictionary, I feel obligated to correct a few mistaken notions I’m seeing here. Firstly, facts can be, and at times absolutely are, racist. Racism is discrimination along racial lines. Sexism is discrimination along sexual lines. Homophobia is fear of what you are. The statement “black people have more melanin in their skin than members of other ethnic groups” is a fact. It also, in discriminating against other groups by noting a lower level of melanin, is racist. The problem is that we, as a society, have little to no separation between (collectively) “bigoted” and “problematically bigoted”. Gender-separate bathrooms are sexist; few would argue this is actually a problem.
These are not the common understandings and usages of the words “racist” and “sexist”. In the common usage, separate bathrooms is not “sexist”, and pointing out differences in melanin is not “racist”.
This is where you are mistaken.
Regards,
Shodan
But is it true of every single individual in the group? That’s the defining characteristic of racism, sexism, etc.: that it takes (perceived) characteristics of some individuals in the group and generalizes them to the group as a whole. Bearing that in mind, how many statements are true of every individual?
Well, qualifying statements like “in general,” “many,” “most but not all,” “predominantly,” might make the difference.
No I’m not. You keep adding “America” and “sex partners and IV drug users”. We’re not just talking about America (you are the only one who specified the country), and if we’re talking about “sex partners and IV drug users” then we’re not just talking about gay males.
It’s okay to be incorrect sometime – the “back when” really was accurate. He didn’t specify America, and he didn’t lump in “sex partners and IV drug users” with gay males (because they’re not necessarily gay males).
Huh? Could you state a fact that is “absolutely” racist?
I occasionaly do senstivity training classes and this is something that frequently comes up during the training.
I use this example: If I were to see a woman walking by and said “there’s a fat-assed, nappy-headed, queer, negro woman”, everything I’ve just said might indeed be true. But virtually every word in that expression is offensive and perjorative. On the other hand, were I to say “there’s a plus-size black gay woman with natural hair”, everything I said might still be true, but wouldn’t be considered offensive.
As with everything having to do with political correctness, the offense is in the interpretation of the offended and may not be at all what the offender intended to convey. Although I’m pretty sure my first expression above would be considered offensive by almost anyone.
I was trying to explain my vote earlier and couldn’t quite capture what you’ve said here.
But to expand a little on my thoughts (and why I actually voted “No” on the poll): I think a lot of people who play the “Facts are just facts” card are being disingenuous. As the above post makes clear, a person’s choice of phrasing/words, the context of the statement, even nonverbal cues - these are all part of the total communication taking place.
So while I believe that facts themselves are not inherently racist (etc.) I also have little patience for people who fall back on that as a defense. Generally speaking, we all know what they intended to say through the use of facts and they need to be judged on that intent.
ETA: It seems **dracoi **and I have said more or less the same thing in a simulpost.
A fact may indeed be a fact. Or it may be an exaggeration or generalization from a more or less factual basis. Let’s call that a “fact” for the moment.
The fact that someone chose to bring some “fact” out at some point in some conversation is really what matters. What was their motive? What was their intent, both overt and covert? What values of theirs are exposed by the choice of “facts” they bring to a conversation?
The whatever-ism, if there is any, is to be found in the motives of the speaker not necessarily in the speech.
And as a rule of thumb, most speakers making protestations of factuality are simply looking for camouflage for their excreble mostly fact-free opinions.
A common tactic is claiming a very strict interpretation of their words is warranted when the broadest possible interpretation is what they really desire. See “coded message to the base” for more. See also “plausible deniability”. IMO we’ve seen some of this tactic already in this thread.
When a generalization, which is true as a generalization, is used to characterize people in ways that negatively affect individual members of the group to whom the generalization does not apply, that can be racist, sexist, homophobic and a whole slew of other bad things.
Doubly so when a descriptive generalization is expanded to become a prescriptive behavioral code.
I was having a conversation with a guy last summer and I have no idea how we got on the topic of the topography of east Asia, but I said that the land is more suitable for growing rice than raising cattle so that is why rice is a staple of the east Asian diet and cheese is not.
The guy totally un-ironically accused me of being racist.
??
Who is it racist against?
Society is nearing the point where any discussion on race will, if it goes on long enough, inevitably involve an accusation or two of racism.
The truth is an absolute defense against libel.