It will probably trip at least a few of them up. Because if they approve of people being required to show they are considered medically safe to do things needed to live, like grocery shopping, then surely they should agree that doing something that's instead a voluntary act entirely unnecessary for personal survival, yet holds the same type of potential danger (infection of a third party), should also be subject to the same sort of restrictions. I know the dangers of HIV/AIDS has been downplayed in the past few years, but I think the average person will still recognize that AIDS is worse than the wuflu.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (17)
sorted by:
Some people might think your comment is hyperbole but it's not. You're 100% correct, and that kind of sentiment is being amplified by GLAAD.
No joke, GLAAD is encouraging "positive" media portrayals of HIV/AIDs victims as role models. Here are the articles about it: https://www.glaad.org/reference/hiv
https://www.glaad.org/releases/glaads-where-we-are-tv-2020-2021-report-despite-tumultuous-year-television-lgbtq
Relevant sections:
Now why would a pharma company want more people to get HIV?
Good research, thanks for this.