Tara is talking about a trial that’s putting the HIV-denialists in the same position the creationists were in the Kitzmiller trial—having to publicly defend absurdities in a critical venue. It sounds like they aren’t coming off well, and this might be another trial where we collect amusing snippets of testimony. Maybe I just have a sick sense of humor, but I thought this was hilarious.
She was asked by prosecutor Sandi McDonald whether “you would have unprotected vaginal sex with a HIV-positive man”.
“Any time,” replied Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos.
Slut.
I’d date Tara. :)
Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos? I don’t think so.
These people puzzle me. I understand the creationists. Even though they are living a fantasy, they are living a fantasy that our culture encourages, and into which they were steeped as children. While I do not sympathize, I at least understand their origin. But what motivates the HIV deniers?
HIV deniers? Seriously? Never knew.
PZ Said:
OK, I admit it. I LOL’d as my sick sense of humor synchronized with yours. Then I felt creeping feminist guilt.
Like Russell, I’ve no idea what the motivation is, but I wonder if someone close to her had it. Combine that with a little magical thinking and you get denial. Certainly back at the beginning of the epidemic nobody had any idea what caused it, but nowadays that’s not true for the reasonable folks out there.
Rather than anger, and much like my response to creationism, I just feel kind of sorry for her.
Morph
Russell,
HIV denial has a lot of appeal among HIV-positive people who still can’t get over the idea that AIDS only happens to “bad people” (gays, sluts, drug users, negroes, etc.), and therefore use it to dissociate themselves from the “logical” conclusion that they themselves are bad and engaged in bad behavior.
So, since AIDS results from “unhealthy lifestyles”, they try to live as cleanly as possible so that they won’t get AIDS, thereby disproving the HIV-AIDS connection and showing theit purity for all the world to see. It’s rather medieval in outlook, really, sort of like self-flagellation.
One case in point is Christine Maggiore, a nutcase who refused AZT and other anti-HIV drugs WHILE PREGNANT. She passed the virus on to her two children, naturally, one of whom recently died of AIDS. She is a smug, hateful creature and I despise her with every fiber of my being.
Dunno what’s up with the non-HIV positive denialists, though. Probably the sort who tend toward Big Conspiracy Theories.
This is almost on the same insanity level as the (illustrious) bug chasers.
Well, someone’s got to win the coveted Darwin Award.
HIV deniers are the same ones who claim it’s a homosexual disease meant by God to punish what they view as abhorrent sexual behavior and desires. Their argument could also be construed as closted racist in scope, if you consider the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Regardless, they seem to be equal opportunity offenders.
I believe the correct term is “Jane you Ignorant Slut”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jane%2C_you_ignorant_slut&action=edit
I apologise! I guess I am one too! Correct link is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekend_Update
No.
The term you’re looking for is “batshit insane”.
Look, it’s simple: one doesn’t call Ann Coulter a cunt because she says something ridiculous, mean, or insane. One doesn’t do that because that insult – cunt – doesn’t say “you’re behaving in a vile fashion, and are inherently vile yourself”, it says “you’re behaving in a vile fashion, and are inherently vile yourself, and you’re a woman, and the female genitalia are nasty“. Instead, one calls Ms. Coulter an asshole, and possibly makes a protologist joke.
Defending ones use of that insult as “ironic” doesn’t work, no matter how strong one’s feminist bona fides, unless there was some specific reason in that conversation. For example, if Ms. Coulter had used the word herself in the particular quote being discussed, or if she were in the habit of using that insult frequently.
Likewise, one doesn’t call a woman who has just admitted to unsafe sex practices “slut” unless one wishes to say “shame on you for having sex, sexual desires, or even thinking about sex.”
The “ironic usage” defense would only work if one were, say, criticizing some insane over-the-board abstinence-only person who was being blissfully ignorant of their own hipocrisy in having had premarital sex themselves but denying it to others. That is, it only works if you are applying the target of the insult’s own standards to themselves.
Here, it doesn’t work. Papadopulos-Eleopulos is not claiming in one breath that AIDS is caused by immoral sexual practices and in the other breath admitting to unsafe sex practices and promiscuity. Instead, she is admitting to sexual promiscuity and Darwin-award-level ignorance, and you are responding with an insult which says “shame on you for your sexual promiscuity”.
Funny you should mention HIV-deniers and creationists together.
Two of our favorite idiot creationists–Phil Johnson and Jonathan Wells–are both HIV deniers. They work for an “AIDS reappraisal” group bent on proving HIV doesn’t cause AIDs (read the phrase “AIDS reappraisal” the same way you would read “Holocaust revisionist”, “Intelligent Design Proponent” or “climate skeptic”).
Check out the website for their org here, both of their names are listed:
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/group.htm
Article by Johnson:
http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/le_overestimatingaids.htm
Profiles of members here, including Johnson, with picture:
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/whistleblowers.htm
Oh for crying out loud.
Why did I know that people were going to start whining about PZ’s ‘slut’ joke.
Get a grip, people.
She was asked by prosecutor Sandi McDonald whether “you would have unprotected vaginal sex with a HIV-positive man”.
“Any time,” replied Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos.
“Chambers!” cried the judge.
Uh, Dan,
Y’see, it’s actually funny because her “anytime” comment referred to her lack of fear of HIV but came off sounding like she’d love to get down with any infected dude at the drop of a(jimmy)hat. See, somebody stupid said something poorly thought out and came off as stupid in a different way, and thus appears even stupider…she’s not actually admitting to… Oh never mind.
Why don’t we have a telethon or something for the ironically-challenged?
Well, let me see if I can adjust my reading so that I get the joke:
Hee-hee! He said “slut”! OMG teh funny! A woman was defending her AIDS denialist position and admitted to promiscuity! And PZ called her on her dirty, nasty sexuality so fantastically! What wit! What brave tweaking of the bourgeois prudishness that would suppress this bold statement! “Slut”! What genius!
He said “slut”! It was funny! It was funny because the woman was asked about having sex and she said “Any time“! What a slut!
So did I get the joke now?
Daniel,
I understood PZ’s comment to be directed at Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos’s reply of “any time” when a simple “yes.” would have sufficed. A “yes” would indicate that she would be willing, under whatever conditions she felt it appropriate to have sex, to do so with an HIV-positive partner. By saying “any time,” she is saying that she is available for sex at any time.
In Boston we have a talk radio host who believes that the prevalence and chances of contracting HIV/AIDS in the heterosexual community is almost nil. He goes on to explain that the myth of heterosexual HIV/AIDS was started by the gay community so that it would scare the public into doing something about it (work for a cure, research medications, etc., etc.).
No, not quite, because I intended no pejorative implications with the word “slut”. I suspect that Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos does not actually have sex with anyone, anytime — what’s funny is that she was so anxious to declare her dedication to her denialism that she would so cheerfully misstate her sexual proclivities.
Unless she does offer up her vagina to any passing male at the drop of a hat (which is her right, of course), in which case it isn’t so funny anymore.
Oh, wait — I see the problem. Daniel thinks “she is admitting to sexual promiscuity”, and that I’m chastising her for it. I don’t think she is — I’m laughing at her unintentional slip of the tongue.
I’m just glad he didn’t call Scott Adams a slut, we’d never hear the end of it.
When I read her surname, I thought she might be a Maria Menounos lookalike, exotic, so I reserved judgment. Google her surname, though — completely off-base.
dorkafork – now, that was funny!
I second MissPrism’s judgment. In fact, PZ, since you’re so obviously trying to raise your hit count. . . .
Apropos of very little, here is what a linguist says about the word slut:
Which is fair, although in that case I think it could have been phrased better. Something like:
Or:
Or even:
Look, I’ll admit that this really is a very minor quibble, and on the order of an inconviently located speedbump in terms of seriousness – the length of my previous reply shouldn’t be taken as an indication that I consider this something worth all that much.
Because it really is a minor thing. I still think it is a thing, but I do in fact have perspective.
I LIKE WHERE THIS THREAD IS GOING
How would Al Franken have phrased it? (WWAS?)
Yeah, but “Actually, she’s not a slut” doesn’t really remove the pejorative implications of the word–it just means you’re not seriously aiming them at Ms. Papadopulos-Eleopulos. It’s like saying, “George Bush is queer! Ha ha, seriously, no he’s not, he just said something that suggested it.”
Using the word like that does moderately skeeve me, unless you’re someone who would cheerfully self-label that way, e.g. you’re a devotee of “The Ethical Slut.”
It’s like saying, “George Bush is queer! Ha ha, seriously, no he’s not, he just said something that suggested it.”
… oh, come now. Seriously, that wouldn’t be funny at all…
(Nor would I ever provide a link to such a thing. Because that would be wrong.)
Right or wrong, this 22 year old female, who generally dislikes the word “slut” and the way it is so often (mis)used, read PZ’s remark as a poke at those who would seriously focus on the implication of promiscuity in her while completely overlooking its appalling public health implications. It was a tasty punchline that was at once wry, sly, richly ironic, and pleasingly silly!
Am I over-analyzing this? I am? Ok then.
I “LOL”ed!
sigh… make that “…the implication of promuscuity in her answer…”
No. The term you’re looking for is “batshit insane”.
Batslut insane. Better?
Um, am I the only one amazed that no criticism has been leveled at the question yet?
Wouldn’t it have made far more sense to offer up a syringe of contaminated blood and challenge her on her willingness to be injected? The issue isn’t the sex act, it’s the freakin’ virus!
FWIW, I cringed at the ‘slut’ remark, for reasons quite similar to Dan’s response. I also enjoyed the remark on many of the same grounds as MorpheusPA.
But unlike many of you, if I cringe at something PZ says that’s not central or germane, I try not to get my panties in a twist about it. We have bigger fish to fry. (And pre-emptive apologies to all who might get offended at the use of the term ‘fish’ in this context. For those who don’t get it, that’s just as well…)
hugs,
Shirley Knott
“Because it really is a minor thing. I still think it is a thing, but I do in fact have perspective.”
Not enough, though, to not completely derail a comment thread.
Back on topic, I’m very glad that these quacks are ignorant enough of the silliness of their position that they’d willingly take a witness stand and put their beliefs on trial. Courts have always been anathema to denialist belief systems, and I can’t wait for the hilarity of a denialist community calling for the head of yet another “activist” judge.
No “slut”? How about slattern, then? That okay? Doxy, maybe? That one’s a four-letter word, too.
Plus, it also means “religious views”, so PZ can get some militant atheism in there, too.
Yeah, but Betty Bowers is supposed to be repressed and homophobic.
I’m going to dedicate the rest of my life to finding the person who’s most appropriately described as “batslut insane,” just so I can call them that.
Most people probably wouldn’t be too enthusiastic about injecting random folks’ blood into themselves even without the infection issue, though. Ms. Papadopulos-Eleopulos (I love you, C&P) might well turn that one down.
Unprotected sex, on the other hand, is actually fun. So it makes a good litmus test for whether you’re honestly worried about the infection risk or not.
Batslut insane. Better?
Well, it works for me.
… Erm… let me rephrase…
Yeah, but Betty Bowers is supposed to be repressed and homophobic.
There’s no ‘but’ about it. It was the parody of the mindset in question that was half the joke for me (the off-kilter appropriateness to the well-nigh irresistible double entendre it answered was the other half)… for a split second, I pictured PZ on a couch in a suburban basement, black ball cap on his head, Dana Carvey next to him, in a long, stringy blond mullet wig, and it was easily as funny as Bowers’ glower…
But y’know… way to kill a joke. Explaining it, that is.
Anyway. Party on, PZ!
Personally, I’ve taken up with ‘cobag’ as my insult du jour, thanks to Pandagon. It’s still a little too obscure, much like ‘skeet skeet skeet’, but I hope its popularity grows. It’s a wonderful little gender-neutral insult.
Well on this side of the Atlantic “cunt” is directed almost exclusively at men. It seems odd to me when I see Americans using it on women. I use “prick” and “cunt” pretty much interchangably so from my perspective at least you may be reading too much into it. I smiled a lot at PZ’s “slut”.
I always figured “cunt” was the natural flipside to “cock” or “dick,” though it does have a more harsh connotation, I suppose. I don’t see it as “body parts are icky” in either case, but cursing in English is pretty much limited to body parts and bodily functions. So, we latch on to some quality of a person, whether or not it has anything to do with what they have done to offend us, and whether or not we are personally opposed to said trait, and we use that trait in the insult.
For instance, I’m not going to call someone a “fatass” because they’re fat. I’m going to call them a “fatass” because they have done something offensive, and also are fat. I’m not calling you a “fucker” because you do, in fact, fuck. I’m calling you a “fucker” because you’ve done something offensive, and also you may engage in fucking. I’m calling you an “asshole” or a “prick” or a “cunt” because you’ve done something offensive, and also you have a variety of body parts.
So, I guess what I’m saying is, don’t hate the language, hate the game. Or something.
Okay, let’s see if I can undo my derailment of the thread:
Really? You must be seeing different HIV deniers than I am. The HIV deniers whose rantings I’ve seen have been of the “AIDS is an evil US government conspiracy” type. As in something like:
“AIDS is a secret disease concocted by the CIA to wipe out the population of Africa. They tested it first on a bunch of gay men in the US, but then spread it over Africa in crop dusters. To speed up this genocide, they try to tell Africans not to have sex. AIDS: American Idea for Discouraging Sex.”
(Not an actual quote; I’m going from hazy memory here)
I mean, I’ve seen people calling AIDS vengeance from God for immoral sexual practices, but they’ve always included HIV in as the holy delivery system of divine retribution, if they mentioned it at all.
Dylan, do you realize that “cunt” is an insult for men because it is demeaning to them to be associated with the feminine? It is an insult to males in exactly the same way that saying of a female “she’s got balls” is the best possible compliment.
I understand the joke PZ was making. I also understand that females are underrepresented in science in part because of ingrained misogyny. Whether or not any individual reader is offended is beside the point.
Do you ever hang around Tara’s blog? She gets all types of HIV denialists, including one who railed against the entire germ theory of disease. This is the internet; if there’s a stupid argument, someone is earnestly making it somewhere.
Sadly, HIV denial has taken root in Africa as well. Thabo Mbeki (currently the president of South Africa, where over 10% of the population is HIV positive) has gone on the record as saying that poverty is the cause of AIDS, rather than HIV. A cute linguistic trick, I guess, because money buys the drugs that can keep AIDS at bay for HIV positive people, EXCEPT for the fact that AZT was banned in government clinics and hospitals until 2003, making it IMPOSSIBLE for poor people to get access to the drug or any other antiretrovirals. Hundreds of throusands of children were infected with the virus during his administration because their mothers were prohibited from receiving AZT during pregnancy.
I’m just glad we can all agree that Popadopalooza is a cuntwhore slutbag.
There was even a gravity denialist over there once. I tend to skip Tara’s posts on HIV (and Orac’s on autism) because the comment thread invariably turns into another denialist battle.
On the issue of motivations for denial, I think the most common type I have encountere is the one that states that it is a puritannical Evil Anti-Gay Conspiracy, EAGC (not to be confused with the Evil Atheist Conspiracy, which actually exists and is going to take over the world. Soon. Some day).
I understand what you’re saying, and you’re certainly spot on with “she’s got balls”. But as I said, I’d tend to use “cunt” and “prick” (or “cock” or “dickhead”) pretty much interchangably. I’d get punched in the face in return just as hard – no more, no less – either way.
Hee hee hee! I would not critique that woman with your blog! ;-)
Anton Mates:
You and me both.
Actually, I have to devote some time to popularizing the use of Wobosphere and Blagnet. But yeah. I’ll be on it.
Is it possible to contract HIV by slipping the tongue?
Only if you aim correctly.
Um, men can be sluts, cunts and whores too, as well as women can be dicks and pricks. At least hereabouts. :-)
And according to statistics more men are sluts than women.
Perhaps. After all, she offers up as asshole in spite of her denial.
Another score for Johnson and Wells as the IDiots du jour.
Creationism I despise, but I can tolerate creationists as believers of any other religion. AIDS-deniers attitudes and actions help kill people outright – those I despise. (OK, I’m not so hot on those religious or politicians who work against safe sexual practices either. The pope is a dope.)
Um, men can be sluts, cunts and whores too, as well as women can be dicks and pricks. At least hereabouts. :-)
And according to statistics more men are sluts than women.
Perhaps. After all, she offers up as asshole in spite of her denial.
Another score for Johnson and Wells as the IDiots du jour.
Creationism I despise, but I can tolerate creationists as believers of any other religion. AIDS-deniers attitudes and actions help kill people outright – those I despise. (OK, I’m not so hot on those religious or politicians who work against safe sexual practices either. The pope is a dope.)
Are you… sure that wasn’t actually a satirist? *shudder* I mean, I know “denial is not just a river in Egypt”, but that one is more incredible than a flat-earther.
Are you… sure that wasn’t actually a satirist? *shudder* I mean, I know “denial is not just a river in Egypt”, but that one is more incredible than a flat-earther.
Wow even nutcase IDiots like Hovind don’t say that viruses aren’t real. When you think you have seen the depths of human insanity some real super duper ultra nutcase comes out of the wood work and hits a home run for the CrAzIeS.
I also felt uncomfortable with “slut”. I got that the joke, but using the word “slut” makes the joke rely on the assumption that it’s okay to insult a woman just for being willing to have sex with a range of different men, or whatever. Some of the alternatives that have been suggested above would have been much funnier for me. I especially liked the suggestion of, “‘Chambers!’ cried the judge.”
Actually, Stogoe is wrong in that. Its kind of a running gag that, “God hates gays, but loves lesbians!”, precisely because the instances of HIV contraction due to “all” forms of sex women engage in ‘with each other’, baring only one that I can think of (think they call it scissoring or something…), have what ranges from very low to almost nonexistant risks. This is because there most things don’t have constant exposure, are done in ways that tend to make the exposure ineffective for the virus (it doesn’t do as well in mouths apparently) or, even in the one case above, the exposure time is far shorter, less constant and far less direct. While there was a lot of fear about even kissing, the only risk in that case seems to be if open sores are involved.
Frankly, its the funniest damn thing about the arguments of the “AIDS is punishment for gay people” types. The fact that the risk is almost as low as getting something from a partner during straight sex, while using protection (though obviously not quite), as long as you’re a lesbian, not a *gay*.
The Dildoids were right! We’re KILLING HUMOR! *dramatic organ chord*
I like the “slut” joke largely because it’s such a gut punch. Humor often works best fast. Regardless of how we define the “slut” insult and the gender double standard that it might imply, the point is that it would certainly get a rise out of Ms. Papadapoulis.
The “Chambers!” joke can be the British variant. ;)
Look at it this way: if nobody is offended by the word “slut”, people who actually mean something by it won’t be able to use it anymore.
It was a very tiny joke (one word!), and didn’t really warrant this much outrage.
(Yeah, I giggled.)
I didn’t think people are outraged, just offering opinions.
I sort of snickered (or is it “sniggered”?) myself. I’m merely reporting that I found some of the other formulations funnier. My comment was meant to be in a fairly good-humored tone – I’m not renowned for being all that PC (if it’s PC this week to be worried by the word “slut”: I find it hard … er, difficult … keeping up … er, I mean … oh, damn it all!).
David, no it wasn’t satire. This guy actually did believe that gravity didn’t exist as a concept in physics. Rather, he claimed that the universe was expanding, and things fell due to collisions, or some such nonsense. His understanding of the physics term “work” was truly offbase, as well. He believed some pretty odd denialist claims in several branches of science. Seemed to need to feel important through being disagreeable, rude and via claims of secret but obvious knowledge. .