Your default assumption is that any criticism of a woman must be misogyny? Even when that woman's actions primarily impact women's health? Interesting.
this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)
Today I learned
7809 readers
1 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
This line of reasoning doesn't make sense. Haters being worse to women than men specifically because of gender has nothing to do with what that person actually does.
I mean, yeah, she's to blame for promoting an obviously batshit crazy process, but she was NOT involved with any of the facilities distributing HIV. That's a bit of a stretch.
It would be like, I dunno, blaming your favorite tattooed celebrity because you got hepatitis c from some back alley artist.
Tbf, it's more like the tattooed celebrity was promoting back alley artists. It's a weird middle ground
I understand that she said it was a good and helpful procedure.
I don't think it's at all fair to say she told people to go to unlicensed places
I see what you're saying, but the treatment is unproven even under sanitary conditions and she probably helped make people aware of it using her largish social media platform. I say she deserves at least some of the blame.
So? When done safely perhaps it offers no benefit and very little risk - kind of like a tattoo
Maybe it does work. We don't know.
There's a phrase for that: Counterjerking too hard. Judging by the reactions you're getting from this, seems you've done it twice in a row.
Remember, counterjerking is not a principled stance; those who stand for nothing will fall for everything.