Liberals have virtue signaling, conservatives have cruelty signaling. The status hierarchy is ordered by who directly inflicts more harm or who supports more harm being inflicted.
The good news is Secretary Rubio appears to be listening to PEPFAR advocates rather than this major right-wing Twitter user.[1]
Of course, it would be better if there was no PEPFAR disruption to begin with, but the second best thing is to praise people fixing the problem and sideline the users saying it's good to end PEPFAR without sufficient reason beyond "I don't like the people getting it."
The connecting tissue between wanting people is Africa to die and wanting raping Pakistanis to die is that dysgenic third world trash should die.
This is really the only correct “effective altruist/utilitarian” response. If your philosophy is “turn the entire world into a low iq third world shithole” then you’re doing utilitarianism wrong!
“But I’m a RULES based utilitarian!”
Ok, what are your rules?
The closest I might sign onto is “don’t actively kill people to bring about eugenics.”
Not that the above isn’t even something most of the left will sign on to, they are all pro-choice so the no killing thing is pretty subjective to them.
But I’m certainly not signing on to:
1) you must provide foreign aid to countries whose populations would collapse without it because they are incapable of building self sustaining societies
2) you are obligated to allow dysgenic violent foreigners into your countries no matter how terrible an effect they have
And thus we have it from the horse's mouth: the far-right obsesses with Pakistani grooming gangs (but not similar gangs made up of white English people, or indeed child-abusing Catholic priests) because they seeking not to protect children but to gin up a pretext to ethnically cleanse Britain.
The reason why grooming gangs were the ideal criminals to exploit to foment racism, is because their crimes are both extremely emotive and extremely difficult to prosecute: they took place behind closed doors (so there were no witnesses other than the perpetrators and victims themselves) and few of the victims would make credible witnesses in court: they were (by definition) children when the crime was committed, they would be testifying years after the crime took place, and they would usually be suffering from mental illness and/or misusing drugs as a result of their abuse.
Do you have stats to back that up: my understanding is that while Pakistanis are more prone to involvement in such gangs they still aren't an outright majority of the perpetrators.
It is "cruel" to not redistribute your wealth to third worlders and fund their artificial existence created by artificial conditions.
"Yeah we fucked up Africa and bred like a billion people there, now it's your responsibility to keep them alive, whitey!"
They want to harm Whites and take their resources at gunpoint when we don't want to subsidize infinity nigcattle.
Westerners have no duty to fund nig biomass in Africa who will inevitably be used by bad actors as bioweapons to flood their nations and rape/torture/kill their women.
This is the absolute state of the social contract for Whites:
-Fund infinity brown reproduction
-Let them move into the West
-Give them free welfare/jobs/security
-Make them equal or even privileged to the native population (they are mostly privileged)
-Don't punish them for crime
Basically White people are under obligation to die.
The title of this post is a very tempting conclusion to draw when looking at the world, but I think it’s false. I think Haidt had it right in The Coddling of the American Mind when he insisted that “the world is a battle between good and and evil people” is a dangerous mistruth, and that the reality is “the line between good and evil cuts through the heart of every man”
One can be against fundamental attribution errors because they reduce predictive accuracy, and still be able to model relatively evils things such as antisocial psychcopathy, abusers in Why Does He Do That, and what I call “pro-plague" (e.g. belief that plagues are divine punishment) in ways that are highly predictive. Better than being naive and failing to mitigate risks, like victims of Ted Bundy or Jews who stayed in Nazi Germany & got genocided or people who've died from plagues due to pro-plague BS.
I think it's a difficult line to thread. I agree that the temptation to think of people as evil is there, both because it's just simpler on a cognitive level, and that (in politics) it's often appreciated by your in-group. On the other hand, the universe doesn't owe you nuance. There's a type of person that overcorrects the impulse to simplify into assuming every issue has two legitimate sides, and when they come across individuals who actually are actually selfish bad-faith actors, things end up badly.
Here's your avg based post Christian vitalist on the crating of pigs and trump's recent appointee.
"Oddly enough, I support life in prison for anyone who feels this is ok. No exaggeration." - 9mmSMG
Here's Scott A. on something he says we all care about, so it isn't really a big deal:
"The same way Rotherham obviously supports the Red Tribe’s narrative, Ferguson obviously supports the Blue Tribe’s narrative. A white person, in the police force, shooting an innocent (ish) black person, and then a racist system refusing to listen to righteous protests by brave activists."
---
See the difference? One ignores tribalism sometimes (not always) and seeks the eventual elimination of all that he despises. There is no doubt in his mind about what the monsters deserve. The other uses the existence of tribes, as an excuse, so that he can always functionally side with the preservation of evil. He's worse than tribal. He's an evil maximizer. He minimizes tribal hate, so that he can maximize every form of evil even ones that are technically opposed to each-other. Except of course even the DOJ admits on the basis of the same evidence Scott had available then that the shooting was justified. And their IQ is far lower than his.
So he's just evil.
---
Let's get to Africans.
Was the behaviour of European colonialists better or worse than that of African tribes towards eachother? Is it better or worse than how Africans would have treated Europeans had the roles been reversed?
The racist genuinely believes that external humanitarian tendencies basically do not exist among the African population. That even if they did, they would not be expressed in a world without European colonialism; and of what value are abstract tendencies that are never expressed. He won't wipe them out --- because he intends to be slightly better than they are. When he colonizes them, their populations dramatically increase!
But he owes them nothing else.
You are right.
The based post christian vitalist doesn't value life for it's own sake. He values it because of it's character. He's a hypocrite, sometimes, towards a small ingroup. You say you hate the hypocrisy more than the raping. So you think he should extend the same exception towards all mankind.
-And maximize evil! Everywhere.-
Drop the tribalism; and the based-post-Christian-vitalist conclusion will merely be... "you know maybe libs shouldn't get any favours just because they are white" - aren't they technically worse than Bin Laden. And then... "maybe the normie-con animal torture" lovers in the heartland should be wiped out afterwards if they don't submit. The behavior of Africans is tolerated --- precisely because they are an outgroup. Drop tribalism; and they get wiped out too. Don't even get me started on China, and it's total absence of animal cruelty laws ---
We can use baby pods to breed a few billion people anyway in this century. Total happiness will increase!
---
Is this really the direction in which you want to go?
To attempt to model what sort of moral instincts he might have (always a shaky proposition):
I think he might view the British grooming gangs as something that victimizes, and that is by the lawless against an ordered society.
Whereas, he might view the HIV things as something upon their own heads (due to promiscuity) by agents of disorder, and so in some way earned and warranted—they're not victims, but reaping their just desserts—or something like that.
At least, that's my guess as to what's driving that. It's clearly not a simple maximize-pleasure framework, and his assumptions (assuming I present them rightly) are of course questionable. There is of course also a decent portion of "own the libs" going on.
I'm saying this as someone with moral instincts that are probably somewhat closer to the online right than most of the people here, but also as someone who would agree here with Matthew that people are often pretty willing to be cruel, which is bad.
You don't have to "model" him though, you can just go read his tweets where he explains his position clearly.
He asks:
1. Why are Africans engaging in super risky practices like dry sex with sand, which causes legions that make HIV more transmissable?
2. Why are women having sex and getting pregnant when they know they are HIV+?
So yes he does indeed see them as not so much victims, more as people who brought it on themselves, and wonders why he's being forced to pay to help people who aren't helping themselves.
How many “Africans” are even having risky sexual practices? How many African mothers knowingly (and by knowingly here i mean knowing full well what HIV/AIDS is and what it entails, not just ‘knowing’ about their AIDS diagnosis) have kids while being Positive? Is every single one of them doing that? Is enough of them doing that that it is justified to assign moral blame on them?
I really doubt so. These are all sensational stories about what are fundamentally structural problems, aimed at moralizing and individualizing it and thus excusing neglect on it. But like all attempt to moralize structural problems it either ends up having to exaggerate the problem or just depict the victims as ontologically evil. It is no different than saying, for example, that Millenials should stop buying overpriced avocado toasts if they want to accumulate enough money to buy a house
You don't need to have full knowledge of something to be blameworthy.
I definitely think it's more reasonable than your example, to say "don't sleep around if you don't want HIV" when you're in a region with high rates of HIV. That doesn't mean that they should be refused treatment necessarily, of course.
"Like all attempt to moralize structural problems"
Why do you assume that there's no morality present here?
Bentham, you do a good job of arguing that these far-right conservatives are, in fact, motivated by sadism more than racism. It's possible that people are attracted to racism because it helps justify or rationalize their sadism. This accords with the idea that people are drawn to political ideas because of personality traits, because these ideas help to justify their preexisting biases. Extreme personalities generate extreme politics.
"Fighting racism" and "deradicalizing" people with rational arguments usually doesn't work, because it's hard to change people's underlying sadism. They will not suddenly become nice people who don't want to starve Africans anymore just because you show them some better evidence about the heritability of the IQ. Sadism masks itself behind political slogans.
Just shut the fuck up, you stupid, arrogant asshole.
Your fake moralizing is so transparently self-serving. You don't even attempt to offer the benefit of the doubt to people you disagree with. We're all just stupid and evil for evil's sake. A kids' cartoon villain has more nuance than your view of us.
When you see yourself as fighting on the good side of a manichean struggle, it's easy to feel justified in cruelty towards the enemy, which is basically anything and anyone affiliated with the outgroup in your struggle. Politics-obsessed people on both wings do this a lot.
Usually the Manichean struggle is an illusion created by filter bubbles and confirmation bias, and both sides have some good points. But even in a real real Manichean struggle, you should be civil. A capacity to feel schadenfreude is a vice.
"But they manage to switch off their empathy when doing any sort of political analysis."
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Yeah, let's not be squeamish about the topic at hand: financing these projects aboad means we are working for others. It is not the west's responsibility to change the world's diapers. To blunt, it is not my problem that children die of AIDS in a foreign land, and I resent that people like you are being generous with our shared money instead of your own.
> Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth
- 1 John 3:18
I'm not going to make any kind of claim about the object-level issue of PEPFAR, but more about the meta-level issue you bring up here of (alleged) conservative sadism.
I do not think this behavior can be viewed in isolation, but rather as a response to virtue signaling, weaponized empathy, and emotional blackmail. At some point, when people try to manipulate you, the only rational response is to stop DEERing (Defend, Excuse, Explain, and Rationalize) ignore their manipulations and simply make whatever choice your principles lead you to make.
While moralistic manipulation is a human universal, you cannot look at recent political history and not see a pressure cooker of such manipulation from the left, which has produced some very refined forms of reactance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology)).
Quite frankly, too many people have been inoculated against indignation for your accusations of sadism (even when applicable) to have any emotive force.
Foreign aid isn't a simple matter of good vs evil. You're robbing Peter to pay Paul. Or worse, robbing Peter's children via debt. That, by itself, means such things can never be reduced to "some people are evil" and it's absurdly child-like to do so. It's easy and sensible to argue that ALL cases of government "charitable giving" are de facto immoral and should be shut down. The thread on Al Capone makes substantially similar points.
The specific case of PEPFAR is worse. Look into the origins of the HIV causes AIDS claim in the 1990s and you find a COVID-like mix of discredited people, fields, methodologies and claims. Even some of the same people were involved, like Fauci, a man who very clearly lied to Congress under oath. In fact you fell for such tactics very quickly because when you say "more than half of people with HIV are women", that's just not true. The gender ratio varies wildly between countries. In Africa slightly more women than men are reported to have HIV, but in the USA it's only 20% because HIV/AIDS were and still are dominated by gay men. You can see that on this map:
The fact that you claim everyone who disagrees with you is evil whilst simultaneously making extremely misleading statements should cause you to immediately re-evaluate your level of certainty on this topic, and about other people.
BTW, the reason for this gap is obviously not explainable via virology - viruses are far too small to be able to somehow "know" your gender, sexuality or nationality, and differences in behavior don't explain it either. What does explain it was discovered by investigative journalists in the 1990s who were dispatched to Africa to cover the AIDS epidemic. They discovered that doctors were routinely making up cases of HIV or AIDS, specifically due to programmes like PEPFAR which grant free aid money but ONLY for those outcomes. From the doctors' perspective this type of fraud was moral because it generated revenue that could be used to solve real health problems that were less interesting to western donors. The result was an explosion of unchecked fraud in health systems with weak audit ability and high levels of corruption, all tended to by innocent NGO types who believed any criticism of African society was racist and who very much enjoyed their job handing out free money.
Thanks to the ban on the slave trade, not much. American slaves ate 150 pounds of meat a yr; compared to Nigeria's 16 - So you can imagine how horrible it would've been had it continued.
Liberals have virtue signaling, conservatives have cruelty signaling. The status hierarchy is ordered by who directly inflicts more harm or who supports more harm being inflicted.
It's fascinating watching people who pride themselves on empathy so completely fail to understand people they disagree with.
You really are unfathomably ignorant and arrogant.
That's so interesting. Mine is on the cruelty signaler being the more dangerous person by several orders of magnitude.
The good news is Secretary Rubio appears to be listening to PEPFAR advocates rather than this major right-wing Twitter user.[1]
Of course, it would be better if there was no PEPFAR disruption to begin with, but the second best thing is to praise people fixing the problem and sideline the users saying it's good to end PEPFAR without sufficient reason beyond "I don't like the people getting it."
[1] https://www.bushcenter.org/publications/rubios-emergency-humanitarian-waiver-was-the-right-thing-to-do
The connecting tissue between wanting people is Africa to die and wanting raping Pakistanis to die is that dysgenic third world trash should die.
This is really the only correct “effective altruist/utilitarian” response. If your philosophy is “turn the entire world into a low iq third world shithole” then you’re doing utilitarianism wrong!
“But I’m a RULES based utilitarian!”
Ok, what are your rules?
The closest I might sign onto is “don’t actively kill people to bring about eugenics.”
Not that the above isn’t even something most of the left will sign on to, they are all pro-choice so the no killing thing is pretty subjective to them.
But I’m certainly not signing on to:
1) you must provide foreign aid to countries whose populations would collapse without it because they are incapable of building self sustaining societies
2) you are obligated to allow dysgenic violent foreigners into your countries no matter how terrible an effect they have
And thus we have it from the horse's mouth: the far-right obsesses with Pakistani grooming gangs (but not similar gangs made up of white English people, or indeed child-abusing Catholic priests) because they seeking not to protect children but to gin up a pretext to ethnically cleanse Britain.
The reason why grooming gangs were the ideal criminals to exploit to foment racism, is because their crimes are both extremely emotive and extremely difficult to prosecute: they took place behind closed doors (so there were no witnesses other than the perpetrators and victims themselves) and few of the victims would make credible witnesses in court: they were (by definition) children when the crime was committed, they would be testifying years after the crime took place, and they would usually be suffering from mental illness and/or misusing drugs as a result of their abuse.
White people don't engage in mass grooming gangs all that much, probably 100x or more less then Pakis.
I am indeed against Catholic boy diddling. I think gays should be banned from the priesthood which is the main cause of the problem.
Do you have stats to back that up: my understanding is that while Pakistanis are more prone to involvement in such gangs they still aren't an outright majority of the perpetrators.
It is "cruel" to not redistribute your wealth to third worlders and fund their artificial existence created by artificial conditions.
"Yeah we fucked up Africa and bred like a billion people there, now it's your responsibility to keep them alive, whitey!"
They want to harm Whites and take their resources at gunpoint when we don't want to subsidize infinity nigcattle.
Westerners have no duty to fund nig biomass in Africa who will inevitably be used by bad actors as bioweapons to flood their nations and rape/torture/kill their women.
This is the absolute state of the social contract for Whites:
-Fund infinity brown reproduction
-Let them move into the West
-Give them free welfare/jobs/security
-Make them equal or even privileged to the native population (they are mostly privileged)
-Don't punish them for crime
Basically White people are under obligation to die.
To me they seem like not merely a racist but an out-and-out Nazi who thinks that genocidal race war is a positive moral good.
The title of this post is a very tempting conclusion to draw when looking at the world, but I think it’s false. I think Haidt had it right in The Coddling of the American Mind when he insisted that “the world is a battle between good and and evil people” is a dangerous mistruth, and that the reality is “the line between good and evil cuts through the heart of every man”
It can be both! Evil can be a constant temptation and some people may have completely given in to their most vicious instincts.
I agree with that. We just need to resist the temptation to start thinking of the people themselves as fundamentally and irredeemably evil
One can be against fundamental attribution errors because they reduce predictive accuracy, and still be able to model relatively evils things such as antisocial psychcopathy, abusers in Why Does He Do That, and what I call “pro-plague" (e.g. belief that plagues are divine punishment) in ways that are highly predictive. Better than being naive and failing to mitigate risks, like victims of Ted Bundy or Jews who stayed in Nazi Germany & got genocided or people who've died from plagues due to pro-plague BS.
I think it's a difficult line to thread. I agree that the temptation to think of people as evil is there, both because it's just simpler on a cognitive level, and that (in politics) it's often appreciated by your in-group. On the other hand, the universe doesn't owe you nuance. There's a type of person that overcorrects the impulse to simplify into assuming every issue has two legitimate sides, and when they come across individuals who actually are actually selfish bad-faith actors, things end up badly.
Maximally offensive "based-post-Christian-vitalism":
Here's your avg based post Christian vitalist on the crating of pigs and trump's recent appointee.
"Oddly enough, I support life in prison for anyone who feels this is ok. No exaggeration." - 9mmSMG
Here's Scott A. on something he says we all care about, so it isn't really a big deal:
"The same way Rotherham obviously supports the Red Tribe’s narrative, Ferguson obviously supports the Blue Tribe’s narrative. A white person, in the police force, shooting an innocent (ish) black person, and then a racist system refusing to listen to righteous protests by brave activists."
---
See the difference? One ignores tribalism sometimes (not always) and seeks the eventual elimination of all that he despises. There is no doubt in his mind about what the monsters deserve. The other uses the existence of tribes, as an excuse, so that he can always functionally side with the preservation of evil. He's worse than tribal. He's an evil maximizer. He minimizes tribal hate, so that he can maximize every form of evil even ones that are technically opposed to each-other. Except of course even the DOJ admits on the basis of the same evidence Scott had available then that the shooting was justified. And their IQ is far lower than his.
So he's just evil.
---
Let's get to Africans.
Was the behaviour of European colonialists better or worse than that of African tribes towards eachother? Is it better or worse than how Africans would have treated Europeans had the roles been reversed?
The racist genuinely believes that external humanitarian tendencies basically do not exist among the African population. That even if they did, they would not be expressed in a world without European colonialism; and of what value are abstract tendencies that are never expressed. He won't wipe them out --- because he intends to be slightly better than they are. When he colonizes them, their populations dramatically increase!
But he owes them nothing else.
You are right.
The based post christian vitalist doesn't value life for it's own sake. He values it because of it's character. He's a hypocrite, sometimes, towards a small ingroup. You say you hate the hypocrisy more than the raping. So you think he should extend the same exception towards all mankind.
-And maximize evil! Everywhere.-
Drop the tribalism; and the based-post-Christian-vitalist conclusion will merely be... "you know maybe libs shouldn't get any favours just because they are white" - aren't they technically worse than Bin Laden. And then... "maybe the normie-con animal torture" lovers in the heartland should be wiped out afterwards if they don't submit. The behavior of Africans is tolerated --- precisely because they are an outgroup. Drop tribalism; and they get wiped out too. Don't even get me started on China, and it's total absence of animal cruelty laws ---
We can use baby pods to breed a few billion people anyway in this century. Total happiness will increase!
---
Is this really the direction in which you want to go?
To attempt to model what sort of moral instincts he might have (always a shaky proposition):
I think he might view the British grooming gangs as something that victimizes, and that is by the lawless against an ordered society.
Whereas, he might view the HIV things as something upon their own heads (due to promiscuity) by agents of disorder, and so in some way earned and warranted—they're not victims, but reaping their just desserts—or something like that.
At least, that's my guess as to what's driving that. It's clearly not a simple maximize-pleasure framework, and his assumptions (assuming I present them rightly) are of course questionable. There is of course also a decent portion of "own the libs" going on.
I'm saying this as someone with moral instincts that are probably somewhat closer to the online right than most of the people here, but also as someone who would agree here with Matthew that people are often pretty willing to be cruel, which is bad.
You don't have to "model" him though, you can just go read his tweets where he explains his position clearly.
He asks:
1. Why are Africans engaging in super risky practices like dry sex with sand, which causes legions that make HIV more transmissable?
2. Why are women having sex and getting pregnant when they know they are HIV+?
So yes he does indeed see them as not so much victims, more as people who brought it on themselves, and wonders why he's being forced to pay to help people who aren't helping themselves.
How many “Africans” are even having risky sexual practices? How many African mothers knowingly (and by knowingly here i mean knowing full well what HIV/AIDS is and what it entails, not just ‘knowing’ about their AIDS diagnosis) have kids while being Positive? Is every single one of them doing that? Is enough of them doing that that it is justified to assign moral blame on them?
I really doubt so. These are all sensational stories about what are fundamentally structural problems, aimed at moralizing and individualizing it and thus excusing neglect on it. But like all attempt to moralize structural problems it either ends up having to exaggerate the problem or just depict the victims as ontologically evil. It is no different than saying, for example, that Millenials should stop buying overpriced avocado toasts if they want to accumulate enough money to buy a house
You don't need to have full knowledge of something to be blameworthy.
I definitely think it's more reasonable than your example, to say "don't sleep around if you don't want HIV" when you're in a region with high rates of HIV. That doesn't mean that they should be refused treatment necessarily, of course.
"Like all attempt to moralize structural problems"
Why do you assume that there's no morality present here?
Bentham, you do a good job of arguing that these far-right conservatives are, in fact, motivated by sadism more than racism. It's possible that people are attracted to racism because it helps justify or rationalize their sadism. This accords with the idea that people are drawn to political ideas because of personality traits, because these ideas help to justify their preexisting biases. Extreme personalities generate extreme politics.
"Fighting racism" and "deradicalizing" people with rational arguments usually doesn't work, because it's hard to change people's underlying sadism. They will not suddenly become nice people who don't want to starve Africans anymore just because you show them some better evidence about the heritability of the IQ. Sadism masks itself behind political slogans.
Just shut the fuck up, you stupid, arrogant asshole.
Your fake moralizing is so transparently self-serving. You don't even attempt to offer the benefit of the doubt to people you disagree with. We're all just stupid and evil for evil's sake. A kids' cartoon villain has more nuance than your view of us.
God, you're so fucking retarded.
I watched this interaction unfold in real time, and think there’s more to his position: there’s something to be said of whether you’re enabling countries to be dependent on your aid and what not, and facilitating harmful practices (such as dry sex https://scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0038-23532009000100024#:~:text=In%20South%20Africa%2C%20where%20the,practice%20of%20'dry%20sex'.&text=It%20has%20been%20reported%20that,dry%20sex%20over%20lubricated%20sex. ) It’s good to be prudent with how were doing foreign aid and whether it’s facilitating dependent or harmful behavior, and whether our believed responsibility to these people is harmful
When you see yourself as fighting on the good side of a manichean struggle, it's easy to feel justified in cruelty towards the enemy, which is basically anything and anyone affiliated with the outgroup in your struggle. Politics-obsessed people on both wings do this a lot.
Usually the Manichean struggle is an illusion created by filter bubbles and confirmation bias, and both sides have some good points. But even in a real real Manichean struggle, you should be civil. A capacity to feel schadenfreude is a vice.
Are programs like PEPFAR good if they keep people in poor countries much poorer for much longer?
Do you know why AIDS is such a problem in Africa?
If you learn that, and you have any kind of functioning conscience, you might reconsider the morality of helping those people.
"But they manage to switch off their empathy when doing any sort of political analysis."
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Yeah, let's not be squeamish about the topic at hand: financing these projects aboad means we are working for others. It is not the west's responsibility to change the world's diapers. To blunt, it is not my problem that children die of AIDS in a foreign land, and I resent that people like you are being generous with our shared money instead of your own.
> Whoever hates disguises himself with his lips,
> and harbors deceit in his heart;
> when he speaks graciously, believe him not,
> for there are seven abominations in his heart;
- Proverbs 26:25
> Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth
- 1 John 3:18
I'm not going to make any kind of claim about the object-level issue of PEPFAR, but more about the meta-level issue you bring up here of (alleged) conservative sadism.
I do not think this behavior can be viewed in isolation, but rather as a response to virtue signaling, weaponized empathy, and emotional blackmail. At some point, when people try to manipulate you, the only rational response is to stop DEERing (Defend, Excuse, Explain, and Rationalize) ignore their manipulations and simply make whatever choice your principles lead you to make.
I mean this not just politically, but interpersonally as well. Consider Edwin Friedman's parable of The Bridge (https://dobetterwork.com/notes/the-bridge/).
Moreover, the best way to disempower people who use moralistic manipulation is to agree and amplify (https://www.forums.red/p/TheRedPill/94436/yes_virginia_you_do_have_to_be_an_asshole) and, quite frankly, you were probably going to be called all these names anyway.
While moralistic manipulation is a human universal, you cannot look at recent political history and not see a pressure cooker of such manipulation from the left, which has produced some very refined forms of reactance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology)).
Quite frankly, too many people have been inoculated against indignation for your accusations of sadism (even when applicable) to have any emotive force.
You're dumb. Not using taxes for Africa AIDS is not the same as being mad at paki grooming gangs.
Sure there are, but they're all on the left ;)
Foreign aid isn't a simple matter of good vs evil. You're robbing Peter to pay Paul. Or worse, robbing Peter's children via debt. That, by itself, means such things can never be reduced to "some people are evil" and it's absurdly child-like to do so. It's easy and sensible to argue that ALL cases of government "charitable giving" are de facto immoral and should be shut down. The thread on Al Capone makes substantially similar points.
The specific case of PEPFAR is worse. Look into the origins of the HIV causes AIDS claim in the 1990s and you find a COVID-like mix of discredited people, fields, methodologies and claims. Even some of the same people were involved, like Fauci, a man who very clearly lied to Congress under oath. In fact you fell for such tactics very quickly because when you say "more than half of people with HIV are women", that's just not true. The gender ratio varies wildly between countries. In Africa slightly more women than men are reported to have HIV, but in the USA it's only 20% because HIV/AIDS were and still are dominated by gay men. You can see that on this map:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-women-among-the-population-living-with-hiv
The fact that you claim everyone who disagrees with you is evil whilst simultaneously making extremely misleading statements should cause you to immediately re-evaluate your level of certainty on this topic, and about other people.
BTW, the reason for this gap is obviously not explainable via virology - viruses are far too small to be able to somehow "know" your gender, sexuality or nationality, and differences in behavior don't explain it either. What does explain it was discovered by investigative journalists in the 1990s who were dispatched to Africa to cover the AIDS epidemic. They discovered that doctors were routinely making up cases of HIV or AIDS, specifically due to programmes like PEPFAR which grant free aid money but ONLY for those outcomes. From the doctors' perspective this type of fraud was moral because it generated revenue that could be used to solve real health problems that were less interesting to western donors. The result was an explosion of unchecked fraud in health systems with weak audit ability and high levels of corruption, all tended to by innocent NGO types who believed any criticism of African society was racist and who very much enjoyed their job handing out free money.
Do these African children grow up to eat meat?
Thanks to the ban on the slave trade, not much. American slaves ate 150 pounds of meat a yr; compared to Nigeria's 16 - So you can imagine how horrible it would've been had it continued.