In Memory of Jesse Helms and the Condom on His House (2008)
poz.com
poz.com
But I was still surprised by how lightly the police took it and how easily they got off (a parking ticket). It feels like if the same thing happened with the SWAT-and-terrorism-horny law enforcement we have today, they would be locked up under some vague national security charge and not just be allowed to drive off.
"One of the best tools an activist can use is humor. If you can get folks laughing at your target’s expense, you diminish his power. I wanted the country to have a good laugh at Helms’ expense. I wanted his fellow senators to have a little chuckle behind his back. And I wanted Senator Helms to realize that his free ride was up - if he hit us again, we’d hit back."
The article was written after the event, I wonder how well thought out some of the nuances were before the event, e.g. the fellow senators having a chuckle behind his back or that power is diminished.
Condoms remain the second-best means of preventing HIV transmission through sexual activity, and it's heartbreaking to think of how many more lives could have been saved without these bigoted policies.
Abstaining has the significant downside of not having sex.
PrEP is not very expensive. In th US, in fact, almost everyone is able to get it for free.
> as well as a few side effects, some of which can be significant
The side effects are incredibly rare, except for people just starting a regime, when they may experience mild symptoms.
> Abstaining has the significant downside of not having sex
Abstinence isn't considered a means of prevention because telling people "be abstinent" doesn't work. We have the data to prove it.
> Abstinence isn't considered a means of prevention because telling people "be abstinent" doesn't work. We have the data to prove it.
The model-estimated probability of ever having sexual
intercourse by the 24-month follow-up was 33.5% in the
abstinence-only intervention and 48.5% in the control group.
Fewer abstinence-only intervention participants (20.6%) than
control participants (29.0%) reported having coitus in the
previous 3 months during the follow-up period (RR, 0.94; 95%
CI, 0.90-0.99).
Abstinence-only sucks because it has comparatively poor efficacy, and because teaching abstinence is not mutually exclusive with other approaches.
There is no pre-programmed amount of sex people have to have. Promiscuity in the U.S. is dramatically lower today than it was 30 or 40 years ago.
I remember when the police thought beating up gays laughable, and my dad sneering, "Queer as a three-dollar bill." Now, I just attended the local Pride parade and the police were having a great time as participants.
We can look in the past at these changes, but people had to live their whole lives like that. Not really citizens, not really people. Anita Bryant was actually popular in my State.
In every respect except gender and sexual politics we have moved massively right since the seventies. The UK Labour party are now to the right of the 1970s Heath Tory party. Yes even under Corbyn. In 1970 he'd have been mostly a moderate. It was Nixon who oh so nearly brought in UBI, at a surprisingly generous rate too.
As far as LGBT rights are concerned that seems far more a generational thing than of the right or left. Here in the UK it's had cross party support in recent years, though of course there are more anachronistic conservative views on the right. It was, nevertheless, the Tory party that legalised gay marriage.
I have to go back to the inter-war years to find them to the right of now on anything substantive. Disraeli's One-Nation Conservatism, the tenets of which still existed and were still somewhat respected under Heath, is resolutely dead, killed with malice by Thatcher's neo-liberal "there is no such thing as society, only the individual". Theresa May briefly using one-nation as a soundbite doesn't mean it actually exists any more.
Both Cameron and Blair were making policy changes and privatisations that Thatcher ruled out as too radical or unthinkable. It was Brown who removed the final remnants of banking control. Both governments were firmly to the right of the Thatcher years. Both would be unrecognisable to the Wilson Labour party. The formerly mainstream One-Nation Tories were redefined as the "wets" in the Thatcher years and it was the radical right of the party who came to the fore.
Similar can be seen on the other side of the Atlantic.
> In my eyes, the overton window has shifted leftward so drastically
I cannot think of a single solitary policy that has moved leftward since 1979 and the Thatcher era without requiring a fundamental redefinition of left/right as political terms. "New Labour" was the redefinition of the Labour party as a Tory-lite party. Thatcher notably said in her later years her biggest achievement was New Labour.
On work, unions, welfare, state ownership, tax and redistribution of wealth, even austerity the current Tories are markedly to the right of any previous party since the war. Crucially so are the current and previous (New) Labour party. You could go back further, but prior to the inception of the Labour party it's going to become an increasingly meaningless discussion.
The Labour party of today is no longer a party of the left in the generally accepted European sense but firmly of the centre in the same space as the LibDems. Under Blair (new) Labour were firmly of the neo-liberal right.
The only reason the Conservative party has moved more slowly on gender, race, and LGBT issues, and other orthogonal non left/right issues, is it has always been the party of the older generation hoping for the country to be run as it used to be run. Such is the nature of conservatism (small C), even whilst Thatcher was implementing radical neo-liberal reforms. Those issues are steadily changing on both sides of the political spectrum, and mostly always have with each generation.
The UK seems to be particularly stick-in-the-mud in terms of policy, we haven't even considered relaxing penalties on cannabis possession even though the US, being allegedly more socially conservative, has legalised completely in multiple states. I would personally consider Thatcher's reign to be more right wing, at least fiscally, cutting mining subsidies that acted as a form of state welfare to a large number of working class British citizens, and incentivising people to buy their social housing. I agree with you about New Labour though, though Corbyn is bringing back the socialist aspect of the Labour party with the help of said millennial progressives.
Distinctly possible!
> not referring to political parties and policy-making, but to the cultural zeitgeist ... the range of acceptable political thought and discourse
Hmm. I have never heard it used separate of policy. My understanding is it's the range of policies the public will accept and elect. If a proposed policy is outside the window then it'll be seen as extreme, or you'll not get re-elected. What usually follows are soundbites and helpful campaigns of politicians on message trying to shift public opinion first to render that policy acceptable. Sometimes this works (brexit, though I don't think they wanted to be quite that successful), often it doesn't. Put another way it's a way of gauging if "we'll get away with this".
So whilst said millennial progressives may be pulling back a bit from the accepted norm of neo-liberalism with free market as answer to everything, the individual being what matters (with as little government as possible), the pendulum after 40 years swinging right remains extremely far over on the right. If it's general political discussion outside of any reference to policy then the waters get far muddier with some aspects distinctly more left than others, though often not classic political areas of interest. It probably gets harder to judge the general view too.
Other than on the fringes there's little real discussion of adequate social housing, more public services, government providing safety net, society and community, failure of privatisations (except rail thanks to Corbyn) or even alternatives to austerity when after a decade it clearly isn't working. Mind that was likely a policy to hasten the reduction of government.
UK policy has always been rather reluctant compared to Europe on social matters preferring to stigmatise and pretend it isn't happening. For most social policies, cannabis included, the changes seem inevitable as the younger generation of both right and left are far more accepting. Even my generation seems often more relaxed than policy. I'm actually surprised it hasn't been legalised already - it's more common than tobacco now, and I've thought it inevitable for ages. My generation can't all have reached 40 and forgotten how they spent their youth!
Irritatingly enough, in my experience millennial progressives don't seem to care about actual valuable socialist policies but more about shutting down open debate with misguided accusations of various forms of bigotry. Policy-wise the best I've seen is calls to elect whoever the most left-signalling person is regardless of their policies or character. I'm sure that's not the majority of left-leaning 20-30 somethings but it's certainly a majority (perhaps 70%) of those I've interacted with. Not that it's a problem that's isolated on the left - the right has been getting more conspiratorial and detached from reality too. It doesn't give me a lot of hope when debate moves from open discussion of policy to shouting slurs across the aisle. It just serves to harm meaningful movement on policies that actually might make a difference in people's lives. Even Brexit rapidly devolved into "the people who hate Europe/immigrants vs the people who are afraid of change/are naive". I think until the gap is bridged, policies will continue to change (or not) without my generation taking any notice whatsoever.
Interesting, I'd always just assumed I was doing them a disservice and not noticing the real issues when seeing stories of no-platforming or focus on redefining or limiting some online language. I think it's far too easy to get detached from reality with the degree the networks keep everyone in their own little bubbles. Brexit was the worst of UK politics in so many respects, especially the amount of racism that came up, not since I was in school can I remember that much open racism. I really thought we had done better on race. I'm not especially optimistic either when we have seemed overdue for a political change for perhaps a decade now yet all sides seem happy to carry on trading insults and lies.
Nowadays, I think that people can talk about whatever economic policy they want and they won't be ousted from society. For example, in the US, Bernie Sanders ran a campaign supporting UBI and he got a significant chunk of the vote, so that idea clearly is within the range of acceptable discourse.
As for LGBT rights and most social issues, I think it's pretty clear that views which were acceptable a few decades ago are unthinkable today.
It's the reason the Labour party had to shift right or remain unelectable as they were unable to move it to themselves. They shifted far enough right as to be no longer a party of the left. Public opinion had shifted right, and it has moved further right since the 80s.
> social issues, I think it's pretty clear that views which were acceptable a few decades ago are unthinkable today
Which is what I said. Still doesn't stop them being issues that differ across generations far more than of the right or left. Young people of the right agree just about as much as those of the left. Older generations of right and left are those holding the previous anachronistic views.
Sure, they're probably somewhere _within_ that window, but that tells us nothing about the boundaries of the window. Which politician gets elected depends on factors like funding, news coverage, campaign strategy, how districts are divided and how votes are weighted. Especially at the national level. Which policies an elected official implements is dependant upon lobbying, cooperation with other politicians, and legislative work that's going on at a particular time.
> If all the politicians, of all parties, in an earlier era were to the left of today it stands to reason that the range of policies acceptable to the public, ie the window, has moved to the right since then.
All politicians? That's a lot of people to consider, but I suppose that we don't have anyone in the west running on a fascist platform, even though that was popular in the early 20th century. I haven't seen any absolute monarchists, plutocrats, theocrats, or ethno-nationalists either. Nowadays monarchs are symbolic rulers and "plutocrat" is just an insult.
Those positions are all to the right of where we are today, and they're now well outside of public discourse. So, politicians of the past weren't all more left-leaning.
> Young people of the right agree just about as much as those of the left. Older generations of right and left are those holding the previous anachronistic views.
Exactly! Whether you're looking at Labor voters, Democrats, Republicans, or Independents, they've all shifted their views to the left, compared to where we were a few decades ago.
I'm not saying that individual people have changed their minds on social issues. We should expect to see old people that still have the same beliefs that were common during their formative years. Society as a whole has shifted as younger people grow up with a different value system and old people die off.
You will find paranoia, all sorts of sexual (dis)alignments, narcissism, psychopaths/antisocial personality disorder, and a whole pile of sundry unhappiness that plagues the human soul.
Then turn your gaze upon our culture, and you will see many of these things amplified. Our narcissistic politicians openly advocate psychopathic violence against one another, we are in a paroxysm of #metoo without ever bothering to ask how we got here or how to fix it, and the word that forces itself to mind in modern social discourse is a disorder of the zeitgeist.
This is the age where our culture went insane, and we wallowed in it.
These things are being constantly discussed.
- Non-human objects
- The suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner
- Children
- Non-consenting persons
Being a "disorder," they must cause distress.
But if distress is the requirement, the list is by far not long enough.
Technically, the billing codes are ICD-9 or -10; the DSM-IV and -5 include mappings of their respective diagnoses to ICD-9 (-IV) or both ICD-9 and -10 (-5) codes.
https://www.theplayerstribune.com/en-us/articles/nick-boynto...
We will be shamed for climate change.
We will be admired for how simple and private our social lives were.
People have always been racist, but overt racism wasn't something that was politically acceptable 30 years ago. That is changing.
The sexual practices of male homosexuals are the reason they have a much higher prevalence of AIDS. If we can discourage cigarette smoking because it causes lung cancer, why can't we discourage the behaviors that spread AIDS?
This is precisely the opposite of your suggestion, but the way you have phrased your commment suggests that you are condoning his behaviour. I guess that this (and not the other commenter's claim that your point “[cannot] be addressed honestly”) is why you are being downvoted.
> Why is every conservative leaning post
It isn't. It just feels that way to you because of the hostile media effect (https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22hostile%20media%20effect%22...). Everyone always feels like their favorite point of view is censored or suppressed and that the mods are against their side.
Impressive.