Pragmatic Stigmatizing Or Bullying

[Stone holm]

My ex brother in law who was gay and hung out in SLC prior to his death of AIDS claimed that gays came to SLC attracted by the reputation of the clean, cut and innocent young men. Purely anecdotal, of course. My understanding is that SLC has had a significant gay population since the 70s at least. The Gay Pride parade (under another name) started in 77. And apparently according to one source I will not be linking to, SLCity has the highest gay per capita rate of any US city.

I highly doubt that LDS are more prone themselves to SSA. SLC is only around 37% LDS according to wiki.

If this is true, what does it say about stigma,does this mean that stigma can create strong communities of the stigmatised?

Edited May 21, 2013 by Stone holm

[USU78]

As I was trying to find the article I had read for Calmoriah, I came across a CNN article which was about a study of the "gayest" cities in America and was shocked that SLC was ranked no, 1 -- how could that be, surely that can't be true. If it was true, it would look like either we are not doing a good job with the stigma, or that stigma is having the backlash effect that I noted. Does SLC have a huge gay community?

Does this non-response mean you agree with my next prior post? Or are you, as a matter of committed advocacy against things Mormon, going to argue the points?

[wenglund]

As I was trying to find the article I had read for Calmoriah, I came across a CNN article which was about a study of the "gayest" cities in America and was shocked that SLC was ranked no, 1 -- how could that be, surely that can't be true. If it was true, it would look like either we are not doing a good job with the stigma, or that stigma is having the backlash effect that I noted. Does SLC have a huge gay community?

Where did you get the perception that there was a gay stigma in SLC? (Hint: there isn't such a stigma. Quite the contrary.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

So . . . keep the bathhouses open and ignore the experience of centuries, since quarantines NEVER worked.

Are you listening to what you're saying? Human vectors very much should be isolated, and likely infectees checked out.

But, since you missed my point, I'll make it again:

Nobody's beating up on homosexuals. They weren't even quarantined when it might have been a good idea. This is not the act of a society beating up on a helpless minority. Such assertions, which was my major point, are absurd in the face of history from the '70s.

I didn't say keep them open. I said that closing them did nothing to control the spread of the disease known as AIDS. There are plenty of other health related issues with bath houses that could, and should, be used to close them. How many restaurants do you want to visit that have failed health code enforcement efforts?

Quarantining AIDS patients is vicious, cruel, and is not necessary. You don't get AIDS from causal contact. It is neither a water born, air born, nor food born disease.

Matthew Shepard would disagree with that assertion.

Quarantining for non-easily transmitted STD's is counterproductive in the control of the diseases.

Actually it is literally the beating up a person of a minority group.

[Stone holm]

Where did you get the perception that there was a gay stigma in SLC? (Hint: there isn't such a stigma. Quite the contrary.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well I knew SLC had issues since the only time I have ever had gas siphoned from my car was while it was parked near the Church Hdq.s some thirty years ago, and the last time I was there a decade and a half ago the area around Temple square had become blighted, but I had not associated the Capitol of the Church with a vigorous gay community, especially given past Church positions regarding homosexuality. So are you saying that there is little or no stigma associated with homosexuality in SLC? If stigma either isn't being projected there, or it is not effective there, how would conceive of it being effective in areas where the gay community is proportionately larger than the Mormon population. And why is SLC so gay?

[wenglund]

...I had not associated the Capitol of the Church with a vigorous gay community, especially given past Church positions regarding homosexuality. So are you saying that there is little or no stigma associated with homosexuality in SLC?

Yes. SLC is little different in its social views as most any other liberal city of it's size.

Oh...you also weren't aware that SLC was liberal?

If stigma either isn't being projected there, or it is not effective there, how would conceive of it being effective in areas where the gay community is proportionately larger than the Mormon population.

That is an inane question on several levels, and in a way it is like asking whether a Mormon stigma would be effective in a predominately Mormon population.

And why is SLC so gay?

You will have to ask someone who is gay and living in SLC. Check with Daniel2.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 21, 2013 by wenglund

[Stone holm]

Yes. SLC is little different in its social views as most any other liberal city of it's size.

Oh...you also weren't aware that SLC was liberal?

That is an inane question on several levels, and in a way it is like asking whether a Mormon stigma would be effective in a predominately Mormon population.

You will have to ask someone who is gay and living in SLC. Check with Daniel2.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I guess not, it comes as a bit of surprise in such a conservative State.

[thesometimesaint]

I guess not, it comes as a bit of surprise in such a conservative State.

Like most states it is all a matter of where you live in the state. By their very nature big cities tend to be more liberal than smaller towns, and rural area's.

[wenglund]

Like most states it is all a matter of where you live in the state. By their very nature big cities tend to be more liberal than smaller towns, and rural area's.

Yes...big cities tend to have higher levels of air pollution, which can have a deleterious affect on people's thinking.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

Yes...big cities tend to have higher levels of air pollution, which can have a deleterious affect on people's thinking.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Lol...so air pollution causes people to become liberal. I don't suppose that it also has something to do with higher education levels, greater diversity, and the presence of institutions of higher education.

[wenglund]

Lol...so air pollution causes people to become liberal. I don't suppose that it also has something to do with higher education levels, greater diversity, and the presence of institutions of higher education.

Of course I was joking. But, yes, massive and intense liberal indoctrination throughout all levels of public education, particularly in big cities, is a factor. The diversity of the population also helps because it allows liberalism to make a pretense of promoting diversity while discriminating in favor of certain "sacred" groups, and against outliers, and demanding dogmatic devotion to liberalism via the blunt instrument of political correctness.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

Of course I was joking. But, yes, massive and intense liberal indoctrination throughout all levels of public education, particularly in big cities, is a factor. The diversity of the population also helps because it allows liberalism to make a pretense of promoting diversity while discriminating in favor of certain "sacred" groups, and against outliers, and demanding dogmatic devotion to liberalism via the blunt instrument of political correctness.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So public education is more liberal in SLC than in rural Utah? How liberal is Provo?

[thesometimesaint]

Of course I was joking. But, yes, massive and intense liberal indoctrination throughout all levels of public education, particularly in big cities, is a factor. The diversity of the population also helps because it allows liberalism to make a pretense of promoting diversity while discriminating in favor of certain "sacred" groups, and against outliers, and demanding dogmatic devotion to liberalism via the blunt instrument of political correctness.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

http://coeh.berkeley.edu/research/bridges/06july/06july_ruralair.htm

[Stone holm]

http://coeh.berkeley...ly_ruralair.htm

Oh no! China is about to be converted to liberalism! Where will we find cheap labor then? The world as we know it is about to end!

[thesometimesaint]

Oh no! China is about to be converted to liberalism! Where will we find cheap labor then? The world as we know it is about to end!

Liberalism not so much, but it is becoming much more capitalistic.

There will always be those that are willing(and unwilling) to work for less money. Though there is a high price to pay for that cheap shirt. Just ask the Bangladesh garment workers.

I can always hope.

[USU78]

I didn't say keep them open. I said that closing them did nothing to control the spread of the disease known as AIDS. There are plenty of other health related issues with bath houses that could, and should, be used to close them. How many restaurants do you want to visit that have failed health code enforcement efforts?

Quarantining AIDS patients is vicious, cruel, and is not necessary. You don't get AIDS from causal contact. It is neither a water born, air born, nor food born disease.

Matthew Shepard would disagree with that assertion.

Quarantining for non-easily transmitted STD's is counterproductive in the control of the diseases.

That's just silly. If you have an identifiable vector, you isolate the vector. This is disease management 101. If we can keep the infected population isolated so that the virus isn't passed by sex, blood, body part, etc, then those with the disease don't infect others and, eventually, the threat is controlled.

They isolated the individual who brought the virus into the US a long time ago. Following his "social conquests," they were able to identify the vectors from whom AIDS could be spread with at least a modicum of precision.

To call management of a horrible disease via isolation of the human vectors "cruel" is to ignore a much more profound cruelty . . . subjecting an innocent population to predation by a virus whose carriers didn't care who they hurt.

You dare use cruelty to describe reasonable disease control strategies when there is a far worse and far more blameworthy cruelty out there?

How cruel of you, sir.

[Stone holm]

That's just silly. If you have an identifiable vector, you isolate the vector. This is disease management 101. If we can keep the infected population isolated so that the virus isn't passed by sex, blood, body part, etc, then those with the disease don't infect others and, eventually, the threat is controlled.

They isolated the individual who brought the virus into the US a long time ago. Following his "social conquests," they were able to identify the vectors from whom AIDS could be spread with at least a modicum of precision.

To call management of a horrible disease via isolation of the human vectors "cruel" is to ignore a much more profound cruelty . . . subjecting an innocent population to predation by a virus whose carriers didn't care who they hurt.

You dare use cruelty to describe reasonable disease control strategies when there is a far worse and far more blameworthy cruelty out there?

How cruel of you, sir.

Interesting. Trying to decide under those circumstances whether leper colonies were cruel. Are quarantines the same as stigma? How about the Japanese-American internment camps, most were loyal American but they got interned anyway because there might have been some Japanese spies or fifth columnists. How does that work with teenage pregnancies, do we go back to expelling them from school? Maybe some kind of scarlet letter they could wear to warn people away -- damaged goods. Course there is the extreme stigma under Sharia law, the girl is out all night with a man so her parents or siblings shoot her -- that ought to be pretty effective in curbing teenage pregnancies and the spread of STDs via promiscuity.

[thesometimesaint]

That's just silly. If you have an identifiable vector, you isolate the vector. This is disease management 101. If we can keep the infected population isolated so that the virus isn't passed by sex, blood, body part, etc, then those with the disease don't infect others and, eventually, the threat is controlled.

They isolated the individual who brought the virus into the US a long time ago. Following his "social conquests," they were able to identify the vectors from whom AIDS could be spread with at least a modicum of precision.

To call management of a horrible disease via isolation of the human vectors "cruel" is to ignore a much more profound cruelty . . . subjecting an innocent population to predation by a virus whose carriers didn't care who they hurt.

You dare use cruelty to describe reasonable disease control strategies when there is a far worse and far more blameworthy cruelty out there?

How cruel of you, sir.

That worked out real well for certain groups of people in a certain mid European countries in the 30's and 40's of the 20th Century.

So what? We're reasonably sure whom brought measles to the America's. Measles killed more Indian than bullets did. Maybe the Indians should have quarantined the Europeans. You are trying to limit a world wide disease to just the US.

I didn't say ignore it. There are more effective means of controlling diseases than quarantining people, beating them up, or branding their foreheads with a big letter "A".

I don't know of any "Good" diseases. Do you? I'm for the best least invasive cures and effective solutions for any disease. Stigmatizing does nothing to provide effective solutions, let alone provide the cures. This is what a real quarantine for Aids is. A legal bar people from leaving their homes, or having any visitors, including doctors, to their home for the duration of their lives? Are you going to have around the clock armed police guards all around the entrances/exits to enforce your quarantine? It was suggested on more than one occasion to simple quarantine them in Concentration Camps until they die. It is effective. But is that really how you want to proceed?

Your ideas are not reasonable. They are simplistic and fraught with logical and moral contradictions that we in a free society wouldn't tolerate if applied to us. . Further isolating people with Aids, or any other deadly disease, does nothing to cure the disease, and only further drives underground those that have the disease. The sunlight of knowledge and the fresh air of tolerance of people are the best antiseptic.

Sure there are some that knowingly passed on the disease. Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. I've never suggested otherwise. But the vast majority do not. By the time the symptoms show up they have been contagious for years, and possibly decades. Add in that there are still some heterosexual men in Africa that believe having sex with a young virgin girl is a cure for Aids.

[MormonMason]

...

Sure there are some that knowingly passed on the disease. Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. I've never suggested otherwise. But the vast majority do not. By the time the symptoms show up they have been contagious for years, and possibly decades. Add in that there are still some heterosexual men in Africa that believe having sex with a young virgin girl is a cure for Aids.

Curious anecdote based on recent science. It is easier to contract HIV as a male if you are uncircumcised. It turns out that in the uncircumcised the virus binds directly to the cell walls and is drawn directly into the body through the uncircumcised penis tissue. Those who have been circumcised develop a layer of keratin on the skin surface that does not draw in the virus in that way and forms more of a protective barrier. But, the main reason for this phenomenon appears to be the change in bacteria and action of langerhans cells in the uncircumcised glans. This actually is true, believe it or not.

http://healthland.time.com/2013/04/17/why-circumcision-lowers-risk-of-hiv/

http://mbioblog.asm.org/mbiosphere/2013/04/circumcision-dramatically-alters-the-penis-microbiome-could-explain-protective-effect-against-hiv.html

http://mbio.asm.org/content/4/2/e00076-13

You could still contract the virus but your chances are up to 60% less. For this reason, in Africa there is a campaign in various countries to get as many men to volunteer to be circumcised as possible to lessen one's chances of catching it and transmitting it.

Source: http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

Of course, this won't work with females, who will still get it just as easily from those already infected.

[Stone holm]

Curious anecdote based on recent science. It is easier to contract HIV as a male if you are uncircumcised. It turns out that in the uncircumcised the virus binds directly to the cell walls and is drawn directly into the body through the uncircumcised penis tissue. Those who have been circumcised develop a layer of keratin on the skin surface that does not draw in the virus in that way and forms more of a protective barrier. But, the main reason for this phenomenon appears to be the change in bacteria and action of langerhans cells in the uncircumcised glans. This actually is true, believe it or not.

http://healthland.ti...rs-risk-of-hiv/

http://mbioblog.asm....gainst-hiv.html

http://mbio.asm.org/...t/4/2/e00076-13

You could still contract the virus but your chances are up to 60% less. For this reason, in Africa there is a campaign in various countries to get as many men to volunteer to be circumcised as possible to lessen one's chances of catching it and transmitting it.

Source: http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

Of course, this won't work with females, who will still get it just as easily from those already infected.

Okay people we are really off topic here.

[USU78]

Your ideas are not reasonable. They are simplistic and fraught with logical and moral contradictions that we in a free society wouldn't tolerate if applied to us.

Why is it, then, "reasonable" for the life of an innocent and genetically unique human organism to give way for the convenience of its incubator . . . at the whim of the incubator . . . yet it's not reasonable for a person's movements to be temporarily curtailed for the good of an entire society?

Your thinking is upside down.

[Stone holm]

Why is it, then, "reasonable" for the life of an innocent and genetically unique human organism to give way for the convenience of its incubator . . . at the whim of the incubator . . . yet it's not reasonable for a person's movements to be temporarily curtailed for the good of an entire society?

Your thinking is upside down.

Quarantining , I suppose could be seen as a form of stigma, as could eugenics. Calvin Coolidge thought certain bloodlines, such as that of the Abenaki tribe were inferior and so to avoid contamination of the rest of society, he supported sterilisation. Which is the reason that Vermont has no tribal reservations because those with Abenaki blood who didn't get sterilised went into. Hiding as far as their lineage was concerned. These types of extreme stigma are, in my opinion incompatible with a nation which prides itself in its concepts of personal liberty. Social stigma not of these extreme forms may be compatible.

[go_utes01]

Quarantining , I suppose could be seen as a form of stigma, as could eugenics. Calvin Coolidge thought certain bloodlines, such as that of the Abenaki tribe were inferior and so to avoid contamination of the rest of society, he supported sterilisation. Which is the reason that Vermont has no tribal reservations because those with Abenaki blood who didn't get sterilised went into. Hiding as far as their lineage was concerned. These types of extreme stigma are, in my opinion incompatible with a nation which prides itself in its concepts of personal liberty. Social stigma not of these extreme forms may be compatible.

Don't you think you are being a bit hyperbolic? So far there have been comparisons to lepers, Japanese internment, Nazi Germany (or perhaps that meant other europeans in the 30s and 40s), scarlet letters, physically assaulting homosexuals - do you really believe this is the inevitable outcome of some measure of social shaming. Could there possibly be less drastic measures and society stop short of these extremes? This is getting silly.

[thesometimesaint]

Why is it, then, "reasonable" for the life of an innocent and genetically unique human organism to give way for the convenience of its incubator . . . at the whim of the incubator . . . yet it's not reasonable for a person's movements to be temporarily curtailed for the good of an entire society?

Your thinking is upside down.

The only thing I have said about Abortion is that I agree with the Church. That abortion is permissible in certain rare cases.

It is not reasonable in a free society to force a person into a state of house arrest for the rest of their lives. AIDS is not a temporary disease, and is not easily spread.

[thesometimesaint]

Don't you think you are being a bit hyperbolic? So far there have been comparisons to lepers, Japanese internment, Nazi Germany (or perhaps that meant other europeans in the 30s and 40s), scarlet letters, physically assaulting homosexuals - do you really believe this is the inevitable outcome of some measure of social shaming. Could there possibly be less drastic measures and society stop short of these extremes? This is getting silly.

The history of social shaming isn't encouraging. IMNTBHO education on the prevention of spread of any disease, and ongoing research into cures is the most effective and humane way to accomplish that goal. With AIDS teach your children not to have sex with anyone that has the AIDS virus, and don't swap needles to use illicit drugs.