Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This would be the book review thread, yes?
I recently finished Randy Shilts' And The Band Played On. I'm surely this book has been discussed here many times, but in short, it's about the early phases of the AIDS pandemic, starting from late 70s and ending in 1985 (the book was published in 1987). The book was actually written very well and engagingly, it is no wonder it is probably still the best-well-known "popular" work on AIDS, something I had seen referenced dozens of times before actually reading it.
It's so popular, in fact, that one of the things that I kept thinking about while reading was: how much has this book, in particular, affected how the world (over)reacted to the Covid pandemic? Let's consider some of the things Shilts talks about:
These days, the book is probably the most famous for its attacks on Reagan admin and its unwillingness to answer the pandemic early on, only belatedly getting into the game during the later phases when Surgeon General C. Everett Koop decided to take initiative on his own to send information on the pandemic to all Americans, recommend the use of condoms etc. This mostly seems to have less to do with social conservatism, though this plays a part, but rather the general small government agenda and unwillingness to use federal funds for new efforts.
Actually, this part of the narrative (about the book) might be a bit exagerrated, as Shilts basically portrays almost every public instance - not only the federal government but also states and cities, particularly New York - as slow to respond and uneager to spend money. In comparison, during Covid times, almost every government suddenly decided that money's no thing when it comes to saving lives, with many governments going quite deep in debt at least for a while.
The book is probably the second most famous for Shilts's anger against the 80s gay community, particularly its unwillingness to admit that having a new, mysterious but fatal STD going on meant that it's time to put limits on culture that encourages men having sex with hundreds and thousands of men, particularly regarding the battle by Shilts, some public health officials and a part of the gay movement to close the bathhouses in San Francisco and other cities. I've actually seen some people talk about these things - promiscuity in 80s gay culture, the bathhouse struggle - as some sort of forbidden knowledge that you are not wanted to know, even though they're front and center in, again, the best-known popular work on AIDS crisis (which was also made into an also-well-known HBO TV movie.)
Anyway, even though Covid and STDs are two very different things (a closer equivalent was monkeypox, and a lot of people seemed to fear that it would become an AIDS-like epidemic, but it seems like that after the health system moved on to implicitly treating it as a STD, it was brought to control reasonably quickly - of course, the infrastructure and culture for keeping actual STDs in control has improved considerably post-AIDS, especially among gay men), much of debates about lockdowns did revolve around places like bars and other places where a lot of people (gay and straight) mingle - usually not perhaps as closely as in the sex-oriented bathhouses, but still. Of course the devil-may-care, who-knows-if-it's-even-real, I'll-get-it-anyway attitudes like the ones expressed by number of subjects of ATBPO, like that of Gäetan Dugas, one of Shilts's gay villains, were denigrated as "plague carriers" and the like.
Alongside the bathhouse narrative, Shilts concentrated on the blood banks, which become aware at a fairly early point that their blood is contaminated and poses a considerable risk to hemophiliacs and many others needing blood transfusions. Shilts blames the profit-seeking motive, which is also mentioned when talking about the bathhouses (whose owners often made stack and were moves and shakers in the local gay communities), and there's many cases where the blood bankers and bathhouse barons are shown willing to refer to high-minded ideals about privacy and freedom when they really just cared about not losing the revenue streams. Of course with Covid, states were quite willing to run over businesses, even letting some (like bars) go under.
Shilts also shows the scientific community being unable to decide on a narrative early on (somewhat unfairly at places; Shilts almost seems to demand the scientists to have immediately converge on the correct narrative from the beginning, whether this was actually possible or not), and much energy being spent on, for instance, turf wars between European and American scientists on who actually found HIV and what to even call it. With Covid, the scientific community often seemed conspicuously willing to go in lockstep and offer recommendations even with paltry knowledge on what happens, like with the "Covid-is-not-airborne/no-actually-it-is" twists and turns, or the early decision that lab leak is not possible and all suggestions on it would be conspiracy theory, something that might actually have been mostly just European and American scientists being unwilling to do anything that would prevent cooperation with Chinese scientists on this issue.
One specific figure who was fingered as a source for must misery in ATBPO is none other than Antonio Fauci, who made an early statement that AIDS might spread by touch in some situations, leading to massive panic and increasing considerably people's unwillingness to be in any contact or touch with AIDS sufferers. Whatever Fauci's role with Covid was, it's pretty remarkable that after this AIDS debacle he still was the one who implicitly became the American pandemic czar, and I think one reason why he was so willing to take this role - fit or not for it - was the feeling that after his reputation being blackened by actions during one pandemic he now had the chance to repair it by tackling another one.
Again, COVID pandemic and its reprecussions are surely a topic that has enough material for whole libraries of analysis, certainly it can't be just be explained by reference to AIDS history, but I haven't actually seen people talk about this particular book in connection to its effect on COVID debate, so I wanted to hear some opinions on this.
Honestly, I'm hard pressed to see a real villain in this whole narrative (assuming it tries to depict one).
If someone wishes to open a brothel with exclusively syphilitic whores, while I think that's a fucking terrible idea, I don't see why it should be made illegal, as long as they weren't lying to their customers (who should also know what they're getting into). I consider the correct target for penalization/responsible for externalities to be the gay men who lied about having the disease (as in they were confident about it, not just at risk) and spread it to others. I mean, that's not just for gay men, anyone who non-consensually and knowingly infects anyone with anything deserves punishment.
While the response to the advent of AIDS is certainly suboptimal, as @gattsuru points out, that was largely an outcome of sheer ignorance and confusion rather than entirely malicious. There were no tests for a long time, no way to tell if someone had been infected (barring a small and easy to miss prodromal phase after an infection), and no way to detect contaminated blood. I'm sure that the government did less than it could because gay men were disliked and marginalized, but not to the extent that I consider them evil for it.
The cause-and-effect chain was nowhere near as taut as COVID, and look at how much uncertainty there was even with modern medicine, epidemiology and stats. You have an insidious disease that only shows up in flagrant form years or decades after you were infected, and it must have taken a while to notice that it was gay men and hemophiliacs worst hit, and then to puzzle out the means of transmission in any robust way.
As for blood donations, there exists an optimal threshold for how strictly one wishes to screen blood. I'm sure the cost-benefit analysis today, with robust screening, makes it eminently sensible to forbid those at exceptionally high risk of contagious blood borne disease. But if I'm bleeding to death and there's nothing better available, I would accept potentially contaminated blood, yes, even with 1970s medicine. Dying in a decade beats dying today.
Well, if you wish to include the touch of a tumescent penis against the rectal walls, he's not not entirely wrong. (This is a joke, begone humorless pedants)
It's because they don't know what they're getting into, and will also spread the disease to others. They're stupid, both in an objective sense and also subjectively in terms of their future preferences. Rational agents wouldn't use the syphilis brothel! A nation made entirely of intelligent and rational ideal agents would've already fully eliminated every STD of significance by at first spontaneously agreeing to, and then nationally coordinating, a set of practices for testing and condom use. It's not actually a difficult problem if everyone involved can consistently follow simple rules and tolerate minor modification to their behavior in the long-term interest of the group. They can't, though, and sex seems to make people deviate from theoretical rationality an awful lot more than usual (or, in terms I prefer - be retarded), so the state should step in.
Oh I understand that there will be negative consequences from such a prestigious establishment plying its trade. However, I am libertarian adjacent enough that I don't think the State should be in the business of demanding its citizens engage in nothing but "optimal" behavior (which is inherently subjective).
I would personally prefer that it attempts to price in externalities, and mainly stick to ensuring truth in advertising.
Freedom, without the extension of the freedom to make bad decisions isn't much in the way of freedom after all. What principled reason is there for the government to stop people from getting syphilis willingly when they aren't allowed to force you to jog every day or eat your veggies? What I personally seek to minimize is the harm to others who are indirectly affected, say by the new syphilis aficionados spreading the disease to them.
If, for example, this was the case in a nation with nationalised healthcare, I fully endorse the government imposing heavy fines on the clap trap, which they are free to pass on to customers via their pricing. I would rather see the fines capture the costs of externalities rather than be intentionally punitive or intended to make it impossible to operate at any cost.
You might even deny people who are so fundamentally retarded access to free healthcare, but I still consider that they should have the right to be retarded.
What is utterly unconscionable and deserving of severe punishment, at least in my eyes, is involving people who didn't make informed bad decisions, such as lying to customers even through omission, presuming they expect prostitutes with the normal risk of giving them syphilis, or the fine purveyors of that establishment who hide their own condition from other partners.
The sanity waterline as it exists today more laps at the toes of such intellectual titans than it dampens the crotch of the average human :(
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link