

The Men Who Want AIDS—and How It Improved Their Lives - btown
http://www.out.com/news-opinion/2013/08/02/men-who-want-aids-bronx-new-york

======
tomrod
I think economists can be terrible people. Why? I'm an economist, and my first
thought to this article isn't "Hey, that's horrible that people want to
contract AIDS!" My first thought is "Hey, this is a natural experiment from
which I can estimate discount factors!"

Of course, the second thought is then "Once we know that, we can adjust the
benefits ratio to discourage people from willingly contracting HIV."

~~~
weeksie
While the real solution would be to provide a real social safety net to
prevent that from being an incentive in the first place. The US, where you
have to be dying of AIDS to get social services.

America shits me to tears. As someone who has lived all over the world, the
absolute cruelty of the American system never fails to baffle me. I love a lot
of things about the US but the idea that the suffering that lead this man to
contract the disease in the first place is just what he deserved because he
was unlucky enough to be poor . . . well, words fail me.

~~~
sliverstorm
_America shits me to tears_

Is this some new turn of phrase I haven't heard before?

~~~
weeksie
It's an Australianism. I lived in Sydney for a very long time :)

------
gnarbarian
"This cruel paradox — having to get really sick in order to enjoy a better,
more comfortable life — has not gone unnoticed. "

There is no cruel paradox here. I cannot begin to understand the level of
lazyness, lack of self responsibility, and sense of entitlement that would
lead someone to think that contracting full blown AIDS would be the 'only way'
to live more comfortably.

This is the line of thinking that only comes from someone that would quite
literally rather die a slow painful death than work and support themselves.

~~~
lmartel
It's pretty hard to get VC funding if you're homeless. But I agree, why do
they contract AIDS for food stamps when they could just found bootstrapped
SaaS lifestyle businesses? The poor are so fucking lazy.

~~~
gnarbarian
I'm not implying they should go get funding. but They COULD move to a less
expensive city and get a regular job.

There's a big difference between a poor person and someone who thinks
contracting a fatal disease is a better approach than finding a job and
actually supporting themselves.

But hey, if someone has resigned themselves to leech off society under any
circumstance maybe having them contract a fatal disease willingly is simply
natural selection at work.

~~~
Vivtek
Sure, because there are loads of jobs going unfilled right now for poor black
men, right? All they have to do is just go get one.

~~~
gnarbarian
There's ALWAYS a job available if you're willing to accept a low enough wage
and relocate. No matter who you are. Maybe not right where you're at now.

Surely you're not implying that getting AIDS is in any way a good idea.

~~~
Vivtek
Yeah. Actually, from that guy's perspective, given the actual situation, it
is. He'll be sick, but he'll have a home and food, for as long as he lives -
and if he was homeless, he might have died _sooner_ than he will now, with
AIDS but housed.

Either way, getting a stable living situation after you haven't had one is a
tremendous relief.

I've lived in a poor neighborhood before. If you haven't, and clearly you
haven't, then you have no freaking idea. I've never been that poor, because
for me, you're right, there's always a job; I'm educated and white. But for
this guy and for a lot of other people I've known personally, this simply IS
NOT TRUE.

Even your blithe assumption he can relocate is naive. His situation might be
worse than a dog's in a shelter, but at least he _understands it_. He knows
the people, and may even have some family - even if his family hates him,
they're still his people! You think this uneducated black man whose job
history consists of getting fucked for cash is just going to pick up and move
to North Carolina and get a nice Webdev gig surrounded by a bunch of
strangers?

How about we take this the other way around. I'm assuming you're white. Let's
say _you_ relocate to the depths of Harlem or maybe the south side projects in
Chicago, rent a place, and start going door to door looking for work. Is that
something you can imagine working out well?

But be that as it may, there's not ALWAYS a job available if you're willing to
accept a low enough wage and relocate. The fact that you believe this already
means you simply have no expertise in being disadvantaged.

~~~
gnarbarian
I have lived in poor neighborhoods. For a period of a few weeks I was
unemployed, Because I had been a student I was ineligible for unemployment
benefits and living in the woods in a tent. I went out and got a job washing
dishes and got on my feet. Moved on to a bus boy gig. Then got a job doing
tech support and paid my own way through school that was almost 10 years ago
now.

So please don't come to me and tell me I have no idea what it's like to work
my way up from rock bottom.

------
nhashem
Yet another handful of anecdotes about a need-based social welfare program.

If you're desperate enough, sabotaging yourself to qualify for a need-based
social program eventually becomes the objectively optimal thing to do. This is
the first I've heard of that sabotage extended all the way to _intentionally
getting AIDS and intentionally not seeking treatment,_ though.

Typically these stories can be dismissed for the anecdotes they are. I have a
handful of right-winger friends who love sending me some article from the
_Wichita Star_ or something where some woman got promoted at her job, lost her
Medicaid benefits, so she quit her job, and now gets even more benefits, or
something, and RAAAR $16 TRILLION IN DEBT WE'RE ON THE ROAD TO GREECE MAKERS
TAKERS SMALL BUSINESS THIS COUNTRY IS GOING TO HELL.

No, this country has decided it's beyond the state's responsibility to provide
food, shelter, and medicine to everyone. Instead, various state and local
programs only provide it those things to a fraction of the people who need it,
usually based on some seemingly well-intentioned criteria. And then some
people have the kind of lives where being a homeless prostitute without AIDS
is worse than having a roof and having AIDS, so they decide to do that.

You can accept that any program like this will induce morally hazardous
behavior in some people, and look for objective information vs.
sensationalized anecdotes to see if that program needs reform. You can also
realize any need-based program will almost always introduce said morally
hazardous behavior, and the problem is that we underfund these programs so
that they need this need-based criteria to begin with.

Or you can push to eliminate all these programs because you think they turn
everyone into lazy welfare AIDS-seeking moochers, and the good news for you is
there's already a political party in the US that pretty much supports all
that.

~~~
maratd
> Or you can push to eliminate all these programs because you think they turn
> everyone into lazy welfare AIDS-seeking moochers

So let me get this straight ... for thousands of years, support for the needy
was provided by local religious institutions and local efforts. People gave
alms, etc to their local church and then the church rendered assistance.
Essentially, the community helping itself. Neighbors helping neighbors, albeit
indirectly to preserve dignity.

Here come the neo-liberals. Anything even remotely related to religion needs
to be eradicated, so we can't keep doing things the way we used to. Now we tax
the shit out of anything that moves and dispense assistance on a federal
level, from Washington DC, thousands of miles away, by some faceless
bureaucrats. How deranged do you have to be to think that's an improvement?

Guess what? The poor and needy were provided assistance long before the
welfare programs came to the fore in the 20s and 30s. They were provided
assistance through private channels, through their community. Unfortunately,
due to taxation to provide for similar programs on a federal level, quite a
few of those channels have dried up. Unfortunate indeed.

~~~
npsimons
There's a name for when the churches ran the world: it's called the dark ages
for a reason. I'd rather not have to rely on someone's (supposed) piety on top
of the questionable scruples of the church to render assistance. What happens
if you're an outspoken critic of the church or (heaven forfend) a "sinner"
homosexual? At least when the Tea Party criticizes the government, the
government doesn't pull the welfare checks of its members.

~~~
maratd
> At least when the Tea Party criticizes the government, the government
> doesn't pull the welfare checks of its members.

Nope, they just nail them with a tax audit. Power corrupts regardless of who
wields it.

Also, I wasn't proposing theocracy. Read what I wrote again. You weren't
paying attention.

~~~
Vivtek
They nail them with a tax audit when there's reason to believe they're
cheating on their non-profit status. And if they have nothing to hide and
their accounting is honest, then an audit shouldn't be a problem. Right?

~~~
maratd
> And if they have nothing to hide and their accounting is honest, then an
> audit shouldn't be a problem.

Are you one of those people who support the NSA? I really didn't think I'd
meet one on HN.

------
petercooper
This has interesting parallels to a frequent bone of contention in the UK: the
role of disability benefits or pregnancies in propping up people's lifestyles.

One of the oldest running tales is of the 16 year old getting pregnant in the
hope of getting her own "council flat" (i.e. a place to live) rather than
because she wants a baby. This just seems like the more extreme end of the
same situation in a country that's not quite so forthcoming with social
benefits.

------
boards2x
Typical of Out/Advocate to feature blacks/browns only in
negative/stereotypical stories. Never a black/brown positive story, of
success, excellence, achievement or anything constructive.

I've stopped reading ages ago, and they really only represent and advertise
for white gay male.

If you really want to see what white gay men do for "fun", watch (better not
really, it's a disgusting true story of a "chaser") Todd Verow's "Bottom".
Totally not the clean cut wholesome gay white male these publications like to
promote, and equally disturbing.

~~~
Aloha
I stopped reading the mainstream gay media a long long time ago. There was a
point when I realized it represented a way of life and culture that I had no
interest in, and would never welcome me either. The only thing I have in
common with much of the mainstream gay community is an attraction to the same
sex, my geekiness represents many more important cultural touchstones to me.

~~~
boards2x
That's really what I do too. My partner still subscribes, so I get a chance to
have a look from time to time, and I find it quite upsetting, but mostly
tedious/boring.

PS, was going through the comments on out.com, and faire enough, one David
Kelsey seems to express the same pov. I guess it's not a coincidence.

(I can't comment there's because I'm not on FB, nor any of the other
alternatives needed for commenting. AOL, really?)

------
mhb
Moral hazard:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard)

------
hedonist
_“I was going to buy an outfit, but it was so hot.”_

TL;DR Talk about First World Problems.

