Buzzfeed's HIV-Negative Shaming OR : Buzzfeed Believes HIV Favorably Comparable to Bellbottom Jeans

Progress continues.

Not for some however. In fact, some people have once again decided to get so VERY progressive they have gone from advocating equality to advocating for a disease, which makes them objectively more foolish than Anti-Vaccine activists.

Patrick Strudwick, the Buzzfeed LGBT Editor has apparently opened his mind so far it has vanished within itself leaving a quantum paradox of bad logic in it's place.

Unasked courtesy of  Bubbachrissy

The article persists HERE, somehow.

The article, sadly, is not commenting on what an absurd thing it is to view HIV as 'a complication' that one is ever 'ready for'.

No, it is indeed shaming the individual for rejecting an encounter with someone because they have HIV, however politely they did so while celebrating- CELEBRATING the 'slapdown' of the rejected. What WAS this epic slapdown you ask?

"You wear flared bellbottoms? Clearly that is worse than AIDS. I regret ever contacting you, Sir."

I would note that Mr. Knight and Mr. Strudwick are both writers in the UK. What are the odds they are friends, hrm? This celebrating of mediocre burns to the end of shaming someone who, bafflingly, doesn't want to risk aquiring or actually aquire a terminal illness? The product of unethical journalism?

No, I am sure this is in no way a factor.

Ohey, this epic battle of wits continue- what brilliantly comic wisdom did Mr. Knight have for this loathsome virus not-wanter that assuredly warrants celebration and in no way confirms his opponent is distinctly more rational?

But... Fashion sense can improve. HIV, presently, is still QUITE TERMINAL. Mr. Knight, unrealistic? Well, perhaps not as much as Mr. Strudwick.

This all quite infuriating as it's social pressure being applied directly in opposition to good sense for the sake of ego.

Individuals afflicted with HIV should not be unfairly discriminated against, but it does not obligate anyone to get into a relationship- and certainly doesn't obligate anyone to sleep with them. Shaming someone for not being willing to take that risk is... Well, dramatically more disgusting still. Advocating otherwise isn't being progressive, it's encouraging the spread of a terminal illness.

This isn't an anti-gay statement, it's a pro-gay-health statement. If idiots of this caliber had their sway, it would objectively  shorten the lifespan and lower the quality of life for those who were encouraged to welcome or spread the disease.

If an individual has HIV, their life is going to be harder and shorter for it. It is tragic and this is why the disease, like all other diseases, must be fought- not social engineering applied to turn them into badges of honor or a fashion statement.

When your mission leads to increased death and disease in the populace you CLAIM to champion, Mr. Strudwick, I suspect you need to take a VERY HARD LOOK at what you are doing and why.

Famous for being HIV. Chemsex. This is a Gay Health magazine? GOOD Health? It would better serve the aims of people who want Gays dead.

There is something very wrong with this community. This is not funny, This is utterly horrible. This is rapidly approaching Bug-Chasers-Level insanity.

Discriminating against a disease is NOT quite the same as discriminating again against a person. A person afflicted with the disease IS subject to discrimination AGAINST the disease because the disease MUST be fought or else you are serving to further a plague.

Someone with an illness of this nature should not be shunned, they should not be hated, they should have every practical liberty the uninfected have- but this must not be expanded into pressure for the uninfected to take risks they are not comfortable with- for what should be self-obvious reasons.

If the disease is fought and diminished, then ever-fewer people will ever need to worry about these issues or face the NECESSARY discrimination against the disease. Is that not worth fighting for and, at the very least, accepting polite rejection with a modicum of grace?

Clearly, Mr. Knight. Clearly.

Mr. Knight quite likely does feel victimized- and he HAS been- by a disease (or whoever infected them, possibly). Attempting to pressure anyone into taking risks of acquireing it themselves however, primarily serves the aims of his antagonist, the disease, regardless of what he wants.

Let's now think of something a bit less stupid, such as the last Superman film. It did not in fact, encourage the spread of AIDS in any capacity.

What is it with the last name Knight in any case? It seems to have a habit of turning up in trouble.

Progress continues.