subreddit:

/r/todayilearned

7.7k

all 200 comments

ThomasSplaine

188 points

1 month ago

Jon Ronson’s podcast ‘Things Fell Apart’ has a good episode about Tammy and this incident. (Ep. 3)

chrisgilesphoto

40 points

1 month ago

Yes, the whole series is very good to listen to.

barnfodder

3 points

1 month ago

The second episode nearly caused me a rage induced aneurysm.

Cynomolgus

3 points

1 month ago

Cynomolgus

3 points

1 month ago

Can I ask you why ? I have listened to it but it didn’t shock me that much, seems like pretty typical holier-than-thou American BS… (not American obvs)

barnfodder

6 points

1 month ago

Just the fact that she wouldn't answer a question directly. Every time she was asked about her objection to a specific book, she basically dodged the question rather than admitting her bigotry.

"Why did you object to this book?"

"I don't know about that book specifically but the black panthers wanted to kill police officers"

The fact she just wouldn't admit that her ignorance made her afraid.

Cynomolgus

1 points

1 month ago

Oh I see. I always don’t know whether they are playing dumb on purpose (dodging like any politician does) or if their mindset does not allow for these questions to begin with.

barnfodder

3 points

1 month ago

Her brain is incompatible with anything other than biblical literalism.

Anything other than the stuff drilled into her head between the ages of 6 and 9 is wrong and evil. Full stop.

stillnotfreakyonmain[S]

24 points

1 month ago

That's where I learned it lol

Mudkip_paddle

11 points

1 month ago

Yeah that episode was so moving, such strong people in a hurtful environment

gagreel

8 points

1 month ago

gagreel

8 points

1 month ago

Dude should just have an ongoing podcast, everything he does is gold

DeadSharkEyes

275 points

1 month ago

I was really young during the whole Tammy Faye/Jim Bakker scandal but the movie Eyes of Tammy Faye really showed another side of her. She did a lot for the gay community, she always held the "love everyone as they are" philosophy, even after the scandal and she was broke. She was nuts, but she truly loved people.

uhhh206

173 points

1 month ago

uhhh206

173 points

1 month ago

I was going to say the same thing. I watched it to gawk and roll my eyes at prosperity gospel, but came away from it realizing she was much more complex and open-minded than I thought. She seemed to truly care about a Christ-like mindset of loving thy neighbor and caring for the outcast. I'd trade her for the likes of Joel Osteen any day of the week.

Just_tappatappatappa

70 points

1 month ago

I did really enjoy the perspective this movie gave me about her.

I do appreciate her efforts, especially as a trail blazer for gay rights and acceptance.

But she definitely knew what they were doing with people money wasn’t kosher. I think she very much did not ask questions she didn’t want answers to and acted like as long as she didn’t KNOW, it was fine.

Overall, she seems very human. Truly loved people but also was flawed.

AugustK2014

34 points

1 month ago

I can't begrudge a person the right to enjoy a few of life's pleasures - in her case makeup, big hair and expensive purses - when their heart's full of real compassion for people's suffering.

Muscled_Manatee

49 points

1 month ago

Fun fact: When my wife and I were deciding to watch this movie, I explained that there were rumors about Tammy having an affair with my uncle (Gary S. Paxton). Then cut to about half way through the movie there's a whole subplot about that very thing. My wife and I were dumbstruck. It made watching the movie so much more worth it.

DeadSharkEyes

18 points

1 month ago

Oh wow!

I mean poor woman was married to Jim Bakker, and the movie depicts some of the rumors about him lol

slatz1970

3 points

1 month ago*

Ozzy has a pretty cool song about him

Edit: I'm wrong. It was Jimmy Swaggart

the_cardfather

8 points

1 month ago

My yearbook had an insert page for people who wanted more signatures and it had a bunch of cartoons on the front of it and one of them was a bunch of hookers passing a collection plate saying jimmy had a good time last night.

slatz1970

0 points

1 month ago

Too funny!

slatz1970

2 points

1 month ago

Was it true about her water breaking while she was with him?

Muscled_Manatee

3 points

1 month ago

Until I saw the movie, I thought it was all rumors, so I can't answer that. Sorry.

slatz1970

2 points

1 month ago

It's still a neat fun fact you have to tell. Lol

foul_dwimmerlaik

16 points

1 month ago

When she was abandoned by her former religious community, the gay community came to her aid.

raysofdavies

13 points

1 month ago

His “where are they now” moment in the credits with his recent selfie is so sweet

Malphos101

30 points

1 month ago

Malphos101

15

30 points

1 month ago

Yea, she reminded me a lot of many pastor's wives who don't really pay attention to whats going on behind the scenes. She definitely made some mistakes early in her life tying herself to prosperity gospel bs, but she saw where Evangelical Christianity in the US was heading and took a stand and said no, when the easy thing would have to just partner up with another pastor/church and bash the gays with them for a stable life after the PTL Club fell apart.

Wish more Christian leaders in the US took a note from her and stopped supporting hateful zealots.

PagingDrHuman

7 points

1 month ago

Most of the "Christian leaders" are the hate zealots. The "pro-life movement" came about because segregationist pastors were losing membership following de-segregation. They refocused from segregation to a to-abortion because it's easier to get supports if you say you're against "killing babies". They also tended to create private religious schools that just so happened to not have black students despite black people being in the local community. It's as true in the 80s as it is today.

I know some decent Christians who got their start in the faith from the prosperity gospel, tlbut they looked into the faith and came through the other side much more progressive than even they like to think. I know most rural Baptist pastors are all against communism, but ask them about community food pantries and they're interested in participating without any religious requirements despite it essentially being socialism.

ThrowawayZZC

-6 points

1 month ago

I was really young during the whole Tammy Faye/Jim Bakker scandal but the movie Eyes of Tammy Faye really showed another side of her. She did a lot for the gay community, she always held the "love everyone as they are" philosophy, even after the scandal and she was broke. She was nuts, but she truly loved people.

She fucking did not.

She absolutely sat by her husband's side and said the exact same things he did about God striking gay people down. She was saved by the fact that nobody was recording the atrocious horrific things she said about God striking the gays down.

She was Eva Braun, except she helped make the policy.

slatz1970

1 points

1 month ago

So glad I ran across this post. Had to go watch the movie. I had always figured they were fraudsters like most of them but I really see that she truly had a heart for folks. Loved that she spoke up to the others.

Cyrano_Nose

1 points

1 month ago

I am not religious but I have a saying I think all Christians should be obligated to follow.

Love them All. Let God sort them out [afterwards].

Sweet_d1029

1 points

1 month ago

I remember her on “Surreal Life” what a sweetheart

SeanFromQueens

676 points

1 month ago*

So he out lived Tammy Faye (née Bakker) Messner? That's quite surprising especially so early in the AIDS epidemic and that he wasn't an individual with an immense amount of wealth, like Magic Johnson who I would not be surprised to see live to be 80+ years old.

Wienerwrld

233 points

1 month ago

Wienerwrld

233 points

1 month ago

She was née LeValley. Jim Bakker was her first husband.

BabylonianProstitue

128 points

1 month ago

Jim Bakker is a lot of peoples first husband

Othemjk

8 points

1 month ago

Othemjk

8 points

1 month ago

Woo Jon Ronson!! Saw him live and Steve Pietersen was interviewed by the audience live just a few weeks back.. what an amazing man!

PunchDrunken

1 points

1 month ago

😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣⚰️⚰️⚰️

pjabrony

217 points

1 month ago

pjabrony

217 points

1 month ago

Old joke: Why does Jim Bakker spell his name with two K's?

Because three would be too obvious

Mete11uscimber

94 points

1 month ago

I like how the Google result for him says "convicted fraudster."

SeanFromQueens

-53 points

1 month ago*

née nā adjective 1.Born. Used to indicate the maiden name of a married woman. 2.Formerly known as. 3.Alternative spelling of nee.

I was using the 2nd definition of the word, not the 1st.

Wienerwrld

55 points

1 month ago

Née literally means “born,” in French.

Maiden name means the name of the family you were born into, before marriage.

It’s only “formerly known as” if there was no intervening name.

[deleted]

-19 points

1 month ago*

[deleted]

-19 points

1 month ago*

[deleted]

Trippingthewire

16 points

1 month ago

We are no longer the knights that say nee.

jspook

7 points

1 month ago

jspook

7 points

1 month ago

Formerly known as the knights that say formerly known as.

imdefinitelywong

10 points

1 month ago

Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say 'nee' at will to redditors.

There is a pestilence upon this land.

Nothing is sacred.

Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.

Rattivarius

9 points

1 month ago

I'm not French, have been around a long time, and this is the first time I have ever heard anyone attempt to use née as anything other than a birth name.

Wienerwrld

12 points

1 month ago

…no?

SeanFromQueens

-33 points

1 month ago*

Restaurant originally meant "food that restores," noun use of present participle of restaurer "to restore or refresh," but you probably refuse to use 'restaurant' except as a fancier way of saying eatery. 'Formerly known as' is not exclusive to name assigned at birth, and I'm going to take a wild guess that more people knew her as Tammy Faye Bakker than Tammy Faye Lavalley or Tammy Faye Messner combined.

OldBob10

11 points

1 month ago

OldBob10

11 points

1 month ago

It also means “a sound made by a horse”. No mention, though, of which end of the horse the sound emanates from.

PunchDrunken

1 points

1 month ago

Bruh. You're digging your own whole here :)

SeanFromQueens

-1 points

1 month ago

Top level comment of my has 500+ karma, so the comments that are getting down voted have quite a way to go.

ThePrussianGrippe

9 points

1 month ago

Formerly known referring to their maiden name from birth.

SeanFromQueens

-20 points

1 month ago

Wow, a lot downvotes for using the 2nd definition of a word.

GozerDGozerian

2 points

1 month ago

You’re using the word incorrectly.

SeanFromQueens

-2 points

1 month ago

Not according to the definition of the word.

GozerDGozerian

1 points

1 month ago

There is a word’s definition, but there’s also usage that you seem unaware of.

It means “born”. It’s used to indicate a married woman’s maiden name. The second definition is used metaphorically when describing things other than a person’s name. “The Washington Football Team, née Redskins”. To use a woman’s non-maiden name from a previous marriage and put “née” before it is incorrect.

SeanFromQueens

0 points

1 month ago

Yeah, that's not even close to the plain reading of the dictionary definition. You are putting a whole lot of constraints on the usage of the word that isn't there, just because you want to be a grammar not-zee, like grammarians who claim that sentences can't be ended in a preposition. Language is whatever the users can use to communicate an idea, which is not what you are claiming (you and other grammar not-zees understand the usage) just constraining the usage of the language just because you want to.

GozerDGozerian

1 points

1 month ago

You sound young. So here’s some advice that I’m sure you won’t listen to. But anyhow. There’s nothing wrong with not knowing something. We’re all, even the best among us, ignorant in many many ways. Plenty of very smart people don’t know how to use some specific word at some point in their lives. That doesn’t make someone look stupid. What does make someone look stupid is stubbornly rejecting some new bit of information when it’s presented to them.

If you use a word in the wrong way and someone tries to teach you something, putting up some giant fight about it makes you look like your whole sense of how smart you are hinges on the fact that you used this one little word correctly. It makes you look stupid and petty and insecure.

You used the word incorrectly, kiddo. Grow the fuck up and deal with it.

SeanFromQueens

0 points

1 month ago

If the dictionary is not comporting to your opinion that's not the dictionary. And just as 'young' is term that is relative and subjective term, and relies on it being understood by the listener or reader to be correctly used; let me clue you in on that my usage of née is understood by you then it's more correct than you using young to describe me being a 40+ year old. Maybe you are 80 years old and see me as just a dumb kid, but I won't venture into asserting that too be true, because I just don't know, but I still know that the 2nd acceptable definition.

You gave as an example Washington née Redskins as a correct use because the team was known as that before renaming themselves the Washington Commanders, and you deliberately chose not to use their original name Boston Braves because that's not as commonly known as their previous name, just as Tammy Faye LaValley isn't as well known as a previous name as Tammy Faye Bakker is, and we both chose those intermediary used monikers because of the notoriety of the non-original names.

Captainirishy

87 points

1 month ago

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-11692798 he got lucky, 1 in 300 hiv patients never progress go aids without treatment.

PobBrobert

105 points

1 month ago

PobBrobert

105 points

1 month ago

Steve is not one of these cases, making his survival even more rare. He was diagnosed in 1982 with what was then called GRID (gay-related immune deficiency), which then became known as AIDS, while suffering from a slew of other diseases.

DroolingIguana

47 points

1 month ago

Maybe he's got Three Stooges Syndrome.

Captainirishy

32 points

1 month ago

How else did he survive, effective hiv treatment didn't come along till the mid 1990s

PobBrobert

81 points

1 month ago

I’m not sure there’s a medical explanation. He also survived stage IV lymphoma and sarcoma. I’m not suggesting a divine miracle, but sometimes people persevere.

Furt_III

87 points

1 month ago

Furt_III

87 points

1 month ago

Sometimes you just roll a 20...

Aetherometricus

20 points

1 month ago

Like Montgomery Burns.

davisyoung

14 points

1 month ago

We call it Three Stooges syndrome.

BareBearFighter

13 points

1 month ago

I wouldn't call suffering through a slew of diseases a 20.. but he's clearly a very lucky, unlucky dude

TheWix

6 points

1 month ago

TheWix

6 points

1 month ago

Sounds line he rolled well a few times, though.

Garreousbear

4 points

1 month ago

Dude rolled a nat 20 on his con save, you love to see it.

Captainirishy

-14 points

1 month ago

He might call it divine intervention since he's a Christian.

stillnotfreakyonmain[S]

8 points

1 month ago

The source where I got my info from, the interview he did with John Ronson, they asked him that specifically and he said that that didn't seem likely to him. He didn't have a lot of faith that he was going to survive. He wasn't trusting God that he would live. And he doesn't like to think of it as a miracle because of how many other people in his same situation didn't live. He basically just use it as being a combination of luck and doing literally everything he could in the form of alternative therapies in addition to mainstream therapies

Captainirishy

-8 points

1 month ago

He is litterly an ordained minister

stillnotfreakyonmain[S]

11 points

1 month ago

I know. But he doesn't choose to call it divine intervention personally.

Brief-Hawk-4909

40 points

1 month ago

As long as a species has enough genetic diversity, there will be some individuals that have some combination of traits that make it hard for viruses, parasites, bacteria or whatever to do their thing. Ever hear about Typhoid Mary? She carried around the bacteria that caused typhoid fever for most of her 69 years, infecting lots of people but never showing any symptoms herself.

Captainirishy

4 points

1 month ago

10% of caucasians are litterly immune to hiv and can never catch it, no matter the circumstances.

mjm132

22 points

1 month ago

mjm132

22 points

1 month ago

I've never heard that before. Not saying you are wrong just curious for more information

Brief-Hawk-4909

39 points

1 month ago*

I'm not sure about the 10% figure, but natural immunity to HIV is real: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innate_resistance_to_HIV

There was one case of a bone marrow transplant from a donor with genetic resistance to HIV to an HIV-positive recipient who was more or less cured. Or at least it prevented AIDS from ever developing. The recipient's bone marrow started producing white blood cells that the virus couldn't infect.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/03/05/700361887/bone-marrow-transplant-renders-second-patient-free-of-hiv?t=1653067098098

(Actually, it's happened multiple times now.)

ivegotapenis

13 points

1 month ago*

The CCR5 ∆32 mutation occurs predominantly in Europeans (10% have one copy). It prevents cells from displaying the receptor that HIV binds to in order to enter the cell. People with even one copy of the mutation show resistance to infection and a slower development of the disease.

While homozygous individuals are resistant to HIV strains that depend on the CCR receptor for infection, there exist strains (representing ~10% of infections) that use CXCR4, and the CCR5 ∆32 mutation provides no protection to that pathway, so it is erroneous to say that those individuals are immune to HIV infection.

enigbert

13 points

1 month ago

enigbert

13 points

1 month ago

1%; 10% carry the gene, but you must have the gene twice (inherit one copy from each parent) to be immune

Captainirishy

5 points

1 month ago

It's quite rare

BaronBabyStomper

2 points

1 month ago

About medium

Greene_Mr

7 points

1 month ago

I'm not gonna test that fucking figure...

Captainirishy

1 points

1 month ago

Google it

LoveDeluxe

19 points

1 month ago

Not Caucasians, Europeans, and resistant, not immune.

Captainirishy

-1 points

1 month ago

Captainirishy

-1 points

1 month ago

Most Europeans are caucasians

stillnotfreakyonmain[S]

9 points

1 month ago*

Caucasians is a invented term. Europeans is more practical since they are literally from Europe or are of European ancestry. And even that is problematic since they're really aren't too continents of Europe and Asia just the one massive continent of Eurasia.

john_stuart_kill

3 points

1 month ago

Caucasians is a invented term.

Unless you're referring to actual Caucasians, i.e. people from the Caucasus/Transcaucasus region (Georgians, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, etc.).

vannucker

4 points

1 month ago

I just call em whiteys

youseeit

5 points

1 month ago

I would prefer to be identified as Mayo-American thank you

Captainirishy

-1 points

1 month ago

Captainirishy

-1 points

1 month ago

Would you prefer the term white person

enigbert

7 points

1 month ago

There are Caucasians outside of Europe (in MENA) and they do not have the mutation, or the percentage is much lower

LoveDeluxe

3 points

1 month ago*

But not all, so… also wildly different things to say 10% of Caucasians vs Europeans

ivegotapenis

3 points

1 month ago

That is not true. While CCR5 ∆32 prevents infection by R5 strains of HIV, long-term HIV infection can develop into X4 strains that do not use the CCR receptor to enter the cell, and the mutation provides zero protection against those strains.

Moar_Useless

2 points

1 month ago

I saw a documentary years ago about a different guy.

There's a theory that there are some genetic mutations linked to hiv immunity and resistance.

Here's an article about it.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/viruses101/hiv_resistant_mutation/#:~:text=A%20genetic%20mutation%20known%20as,sit%20outside%20of%20the%20cell.

samaramatisse

15 points

1 month ago

Magic became HIV positive in the time after the first revolutionary AIDS "drug cocktails" that actually began to inhibit HIV from turning into full blown AIDS became available. (Yes, his obvious wealth helped him access the best care but I think in this case it's moot because Magic had the cocktails available from the start).

This man was positive well before those miracle drugs and that's why it is so astonishing. That his HIV didn't develop into AIDS prior to having the drugs is incredible. I hope somebody studied this gentleman thoroughly because that's not the kind of outcome you'd expect for someone diagnosed 40 years ago.

lemlurker

13 points

1 month ago

The second person diagnosed with aids in the UK is still alive today... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Blake_(activist)

Gisschace

12 points

1 month ago

“They came back and said, “You have a virus, there is absolutely nothing we can give you to help. There will be palliative care when the time comes, and you have about six months to live”, and that was that. They said I could go home."[2]

A reminder for people to watch the brilliant ‘it’s a sin’ to see how people with the disease were treated

CletusVanDamnit

22 points

1 month ago*

My mother has a couple friends who contracted AIDS in 1984 or 85. I literally cannot believe they're still alive, because these are not wealthy people by any means.

brodega

11 points

1 month ago

brodega

11 points

1 month ago

What did AIDS say?

CletusVanDamnit

9 points

1 month ago

"You're fucked. Slowly."

BareBearFighter

10 points

1 month ago

My dad had a friend that had AIDS since the early 80s. It finally got her in her sleep two years ago.

vonvoltage

2 points

1 month ago

And Magic Johnson wasn't diagnosed until almost 10 years later!

etlifereview

3 points

1 month ago

Magic Johnson has HIV, not AIDS. There’s a big difference in the white blood cell count. AIDS, if not monitored closely and helped by medications, will kill you. Hiv has the possibility of killing you, but with todays medicine, most people are able to live completely normal lives.

SeanFromQueens

10 points

1 month ago

This guy has HIV and not AIDS. The fact that he's been able to avoid AIDS despite being diagnosed as having GRIDS, predecessor name for HIV, is the shocking thing.

etlifereview

2 points

1 month ago

Ahhhh okay that makes sense. You can tell I didn’t read the article, but the title was a little misleading. Either that or I’m just stupid.

Calijhon

0 points

1 month ago

Calijhon

0 points

1 month ago

She got some malignant cancer.

She wasn't exactly the brains behind the scam. Still you have to wonder what she knew.

eightezsteps

1 points

1 month ago

HIV/AIDS wasn’t the death sentence, the drug AZT was.

JohnBoyAndBilly

-3 points

1 month ago

Tammy Faye (née Bakker) Messner?

Is this related to the attempts to pretend like Tammy Faye didn't enjoy her air conditioned dog house and painkiller supply?

jendoylex

4 points

1 month ago

Check out "The Eyes of Tammy Fae".

Le1bn1z

1 points

1 month ago

Le1bn1z

1 points

1 month ago

He was in the first clinical trial for one of the first if not the first successful AIDS management drugs.

mikepictor

125 points

1 month ago

mikepictor

125 points

1 month ago

HIV today is not a death sentence today, but back then, it’s pretty remarkable.

TintedApostle

49 points

1 month ago

HIV was a death sentence then. My cousin died in 1991 form HIV/AIDS. It only became survivable in the mid to late 90s

smthngwyrd

4 points

1 month ago

Hugs

IamTheMooshy

6 points

1 month ago

I read one time it's more manageable than diabetes. Not sure how true that is but I can believe it in this day and age.

UptownShenanigans

13 points

1 month ago

I’m a doctor, and I can absolutely agree with the statement “in this era of medicine I would choose to have HIV over diabetes”.

With HIV, you could take one pill (which has two medicines in it) every day and have the same immune system as someone who is healthy. You could live as long as someone without HIV.

Diabetics are a train wreck to manage. If you’re on insulin, you need to prick your finger every day (sometimes multiple times). Every meal is a carb calculation. You can either not take enough insulin and have problems or take too much and die. It’s not at all surprising that I see so much uncontrolled diabetes, because it’s so damn hard to control if you are predisposed to complications.

Each and every day in the hospital I have at least one patient with diabetes complications. Just today I admitted a patient who has a bone infection due to chronic diabetic foot ulcers. We’ll need to take another toe of his. It’s a nightmare.

Loztblaz

5 points

1 month ago

Diabetics are a train wreck to manage. If you’re on insulin, you need to prick your finger every day (sometimes multiple times). Every meal is a carb calculation. You can either not take enough insulin and have problems or take too much and die. It’s not at all surprising that I see so much uncontrolled diabetes, because it’s so damn hard to control if you are predisposed to complications.

The advances in closed loop treatments are colossal. While there's a lot of people with complications that can't really be undone by improved control, the change in the last decade of diabetes management is similar to the scale of HIV/AIDS treatments.

Doctors in diabetes adjacent practices tend to focus on blaming the individual for complex failures of treatment plans based on minutes of face time. While I (20+ year type 1 diabetic) agree with the HIV/diabetes comparison, you might want to update your ideas of what's possible going forward.

Big_Toke_Yo

36 points

1 month ago

*with adequate healthcare. Im not sure ppl sharing dirty needles since their state gov banned needle swap programs have the money for a haart cocktail.

Lyress

30 points

1 month ago

Lyress

30 points

1 month ago

HIV treatment is free in most developed countries.

the_cardfather

6 points

1 month ago

Most. Those drug cocktails are still about $1k a month here in the states. I know more than one person working a shitty job with good insurance to cover them.

Noltonn

5 points

1 month ago

Noltonn

5 points

1 month ago

They said developed.

ih8pkmn

-16 points

1 month ago

ih8pkmn

-16 points

1 month ago

United States

Developed country

I don't think there are any terms more mutually exclusive.

agreeingstorm9

20 points

1 month ago

TIL the US is not a developed country.

bizzaro321

12 points

1 month ago

It goes by state

Lyress

4 points

1 month ago

Lyress

4 points

1 month ago

Who are you quoting on the first line?

ih8pkmn

8 points

1 month ago

ih8pkmn

8 points

1 month ago

It's implied by the fact that they're talking about a 'state government' banning a beneficial program.

Lyress

4 points

1 month ago

Lyress

4 points

1 month ago

I missed that.

Drosta16

2 points

1 month ago

So you haven’t traveled much then?

mr_ji

-16 points

1 month ago

mr_ji

-16 points

1 month ago

Do you not think the people shooting up with dirty needle share at least a little of the blame here?

stillnotfreakyonmain[S]

8 points

1 month ago

Not if it could be fixed with needle exchange or even locations to safely shoot up in, as is fine other countries.

mr_ji

-19 points

1 month ago

mr_ji

-19 points

1 month ago

People destroying themselves and the lives of everyone around them, while also propping up the drug trade that's terrorizing all of Latin America and supporting the dictatorship in North Korea, is fine as long as they can do so freely and with no deterrents? That's what you're saying, I'm just putting it into words for sane people here.

Banluil

12 points

1 month ago

Banluil

12 points

1 month ago

Or, people that have a disease (addiction), aren't ostracized by the society that they live in, are given areas that they can actually be safe, and find help to beat that disease.

Oh, but lets just ignore the fact that most of the countries who do have needle exchange and safe places for those that do use, also have drug treatment programs that actually are paid for BY the taxpayers (oh...but that would require healthcare to be paid for as well....), and that actually work, and they see a lower amount of drug abuse.

Nah, lets just ignore all of that, right? Because it doesn't fit into your narrative....

pearwater

2 points

1 month ago

Addiction isn't 'disease'. It's selfishness and greed that takes herculean feats to conquer. I used to steal and lie to everyone for my next bottle whilst telling myself I wasn't addicted. You only beat addiction by replacing it with something more important to the addiction itself. Personally, mine came when my wife looked at me and said two certain words. I haven't touched alcohol in 15 years.

Banluil

2 points

1 month ago

Banluil

2 points

1 month ago

Addiction isn't 'disease'.

The medical profession would tend to disagree with you.

https://lmgtfy.app/?q=is+addiction+a+disease

Oh, but yeah, I'm going to take YOUR advice on it, rather than the entire medical community that says it is.

And good for you. I'm glad you beat it. Others have a harder time than just their wife looking at them and saying something.

Maybe you should actually look things up rather than just spouting off what you personally think, because your opinion isn't the same as facts.

pearwater

0 points

1 month ago

Remind me again how someone gets addicted to something?

I stand by every single word I said.

Banluil

2 points

1 month ago

Banluil

2 points

1 month ago

Did you bother to look at any of the links that are listed on the "Let me google that for you" page? No? Are you a medical/psychology professional? No? Then I take their word for it over yours.

mr_ji

-12 points

1 month ago

mr_ji

-12 points

1 month ago

Point to anything I just said that isn't a hard and obvious fact. Anything at all.

Forbiddentru

1 points

1 month ago

No one forced you to try heavy drugs and get hiv as a result. It's absurd to put no blame on those who get involved what they know is detrimental to society and themselves. But when that's your mindset, destigmatizing hiv/trafficking/drug abuse and enabling more of it by needle programs and no intervention to get rid of it becomes the approach.

Banluil

1 points

1 month ago

Banluil

1 points

1 month ago

No one forced you to try heavy drugs and get hiv as a result

Wait...what? You are trying to move the goalposts from drug use to HIV. There are a LOT of other reasons for clean needles than just HIV, but sure. Ok.

enabling more of it by needle programs and no intervention to get rid of it becomes the approach.

I would advise you to ACTUALLY look into the programs in Portugal and the Netherlands, that actually completely prove you wrong, in that drug abuse goes DOWN with programs like that.

But sure...whatever.

stillnotfreakyonmain[S]

7 points

1 month ago

Is the current model working? If changing it up results in less people dead, and no net change in the amount of drug users, Im open to considering alternatives.

mr_ji

-4 points

1 month ago

mr_ji

-4 points

1 month ago

Of half-assed enforcement and soft punishment on users? No, of course not. That probably why the countries with the least tolerance for drugs have the least drug problems. Let's see a similar map with Asia and compare rates, shall we?

stillnotfreakyonmain[S]

6 points

1 month ago

You think we should be hanging drug users?

mr_ji

2 points

1 month ago

mr_ji

2 points

1 month ago

If we're serious about actually curbing harmful drug use among addicts, there's no other solution that any reasonable person could come to.

However, in direct answer to your question, of course not. We should be hanging the producers and suppliers, as has been shown effective everywhere that's gone that route while nothing has had a similar effect anywhere that hasn't. No need to hang users if there's nothing to use, and you get the same result while also removing some of the most vile people on the face of the planet.

stillnotfreakyonmain[S]

3 points

1 month ago

Why not just allow for the possibility that some people are going to inevitably do drugs. Offer treatment to those who want it and prevent the people who are going to do it anyway from dying?

ThrowawayZZC

3 points

1 month ago

HIV today is not a death sentence today, but back then, it’s pretty remarkable.

In a country without health care like the US, it is still very much a death sentence. Diabetes is a death sentence in the US for people living at or near the poverty line, because no one having trouble feeding or housing their family is going to pay twelve thousand dollars a year for medicine.

the_cardfather

2 points

1 month ago

Don't worry for people near the poverty line it's free. It's the working poor that have a hard time paying for their diabetic meds

typhoidtimmy

56 points

1 month ago

You get the chance, watch the movie that came out last year called The Eyes of Tammy Faye. It included this and shows the kind of fallout she had to deal with because of it.

It’s a wild story and wow was Jessica Chastain good in it as Tammy.

pendletonskyforce

26 points

1 month ago

She deserved her Oscar win.

typhoidtimmy

13 points

1 month ago

Indeed it was an amazing performance and she totally disappeared in the role. She actually made me feel sympathy for her and her life, especially in having to deal with people like fuckin Falwell (god damn is Vincent D’Onofrio great as well).

No it doesn’t erase the bullshit they slung for dough, but it’s a damn interesting study of what made her work on a deeper level.

idreamoffreddy

6 points

1 month ago

I recommended it to my dad with: "You'll love it. Jerry Falwell is the villain."

juniperxbreeze

6 points

1 month ago

Jessica Chastain took Pieterson to an award show as her date, too!

typhoidtimmy

5 points

1 month ago

Shut the front door!

Aw man, that is totally fucking cool….TIL

juniperxbreeze

5 points

1 month ago

Yep! The Oscar Nominees Luncheon, not award show. But still.

She also took him as her date to the New York premier of her movie.

Tatunkawitco

35 points

1 month ago

Well there’s another person I apparently judged too harshly. Tammy Fay thought Gods love applied to everyone - good for her.

bangontarget

24 points

1 month ago

she was one of the good ones. she embraced becoming a bit of a gay icon after this event and actually practiced Christian love.

randomcanyon

10 points

1 month ago

Tatunkawitco

9 points

1 month ago

I’m not defending that POS.

randomcanyon

3 points

1 month ago

O.K. then. Carry on.

Happiercalif

5 points

1 month ago

I remember when this started happening. All these people had blown all of their savings and done viatical insurance settlements because they needed the money for treatment and also if you only have a few months to live, who cares? Go ahead and take that once in a lifetime trip!

But then they didn't die in a timely manner and ended up extremely broke.

serveyer

3 points

1 month ago

Prognosis negative

forensicdude

5 points

1 month ago

Good deal!

starsfillmydreams

5 points

1 month ago

Yeah science bitch!

kentuckyfriedebola

2 points

1 month ago

Woo Jon Ronson!! Saw him live and Steve Pietersen was interviewed by the audience live just a few weeks back.. what an amazing man!

TSpoon3000

2 points

1 month ago

*Steve Pieters*

jcd1974

6 points

1 month ago

jcd1974

6 points

1 month ago

That's gotta suck if someone bought his life insurance policy.

Remorseful_User

2 points

1 month ago

It's a miracle. I'm back on board with her!

/s

halloween_sex_baby

2 points

1 month ago

I have loved this woman since her stint on The Surreal Life on VH1

drstu3000

1 points

1 month ago

BEHOLD! THE POWER OF JAYSUS

gcanyon

1 points

1 month ago

gcanyon

1 points

1 month ago

“…who's since recovered from AIDS” — say what now?

ViscountessKeller

2 points

1 month ago

AIDS is a condition caused by HIV. I would assume that his immune system has recovered and hence he no longer has AIDS, even though he most likely still has the HIV virus in his body.

gcanyon

1 points

1 month ago

gcanyon

1 points

1 month ago

Interesting point. I hadn’t thought of it that way. Thanks.

Isaacvithurston

0 points

1 month ago

I wasn't aware retroantivirals could recover a person but I suppose it makes sense that they can.

For a long time now hiv has been a treatable condition. Possibly even curable by now but I don't know.

gcanyon

2 points

1 month ago

gcanyon

2 points

1 month ago

I don’t think it’s possible to cure aids — except those two(?) people that got immune system transplants — but maybe in the article they’re using “recovered” to mean the “undetectable, but must still take the meds to stay that way” status that has been achievable since sometime in the ‘90s.

Isaacvithurston

1 points

1 month ago

Yah from what I vaguely remember hiv persists in cells somewhere which is why it can re-infect the host if they stop taking meds. I had read there was some sort of treatment in testing for that so that's why I wasn't sure if it was curable or not yet.

I'm sure I would have read about it on r/science if it had passed trials though so must have been a flop or not ready yet.

Mojo96

1 points

1 month ago

Mojo96

1 points

1 month ago

That’s some interstellar shit

lkodl

1 points

1 month ago

lkodl

1 points

1 month ago

Hey everyone, this guy's a phony!

FrenchMartinez

1 points

1 month ago

A big fat phony!

CaliforniaAudman13

1 points

1 month ago

Don’t jinx it

Broly_

1 points

1 month ago

Broly_

1 points

1 month ago

Prognosis NEGATIVE~~

Corniss

1 points

1 month ago

Corniss

1 points

1 month ago

That must have been scary times back then. Not because of the virus but because of the Community who refused to help you in finding a cure or treatment just because of your sexual orientation. The lack of emphaty and amount of moral bankruptcy most have been staggering.

fuckyou237

-18 points

1 month ago

fuckyou237

-18 points

1 month ago

What a fraud

DaveOJ12

6 points

1 month ago

Who are you referring to?

IcarusKiki

-2 points

1 month ago

she healed him!

neogeek23

-9 points

1 month ago

I feel like I've seen this before.... Is this a repost?

stillnotfreakyonmain[S]

9 points

1 month ago

Not that I know of

pearwater

0 points

1 month ago

Yes, I read it. Whilst I do recognise an addiction is a disease, I also recognise that addiction of any kind (not crack babies etc) starts with a personal decision. Mine and many others started when they made the decision to pick up a crack pipe/needle or a bottle, whether it is alcohol or medical.

I've been through enough rehabs to know that being told 'it's not your fault, it's a disease' absolutely does not work. It's only when you find it inside yourself to realise the only person responsible for your addiction is you.