Twitter users bully woman into committing suicide for branding her homophobic

[Fogdog]

you'll have to expand on this because im pretty sure this is a discussion about a sex worker who has decided that she will not sleep with memebers of that comuntiy because of the risk...

you dont seem to be arguing with the numbers here even though they show a much higher risk than you portrayed

What you said:
"that randomness becomes irelevent once you decide it will be someone from the gay comunity that you'l be having sex with"

Once testing is factored in, that 11% becomes practically zero. HIV testing picks up 95% of all HIV infections after 28 days of infection.

The issue is trust, not risk.

 

[ginjawarrior]

What you said:
"that randomness becomes irelevent once you decide it will be someone from the gay comunity that you'l be having sex with"

Once testing is factored in, that 11% becomes practically zero. HIV testing picks up 95% of all HIV infections after 28 days of infection.

The issue is trust, not risk.

it takes 90 days before they can give you a sensible negative(i know that ive been tested regualry and that is what they tell you)

you can be infectious through most of those 90 days

when talking about porn it could be an easy (very easy) 10 partners a month of those 10 partners they too could have had 10 partners too

zero risk is bullshit

it isnt up to you to decide what risk is acceptable for anyone ever to have sex when they do not want to

 

[Fogdog]

show your work?

you mentioned in a post earlier about people having a gay friend so it ok for their veiw (ok paraphrasing )

heres something i didnt want anyone here to know (as with the rest of my sexuality) as every little bit of personal information of yourself here gets used as a hammer

i am bisexual, i not only have had sex with women but i have also have had sex with men. and will continue into the future having sex with both

i will not pretend that there isnt a problem with hiv amoungst basicly the people i have sex with

now heres a question for you

what horse have you in this game?

I don't do horses. (I couldn't leave that one alone)

First, it was unnecessary to tell me your identity. It's irrelevant to the conversation. I don't care and would have preferred you keep what you didn't want to discuss private. In any case, this doesn't mean you can't be homophobic. My sexuality is irrelevant too. My only care is to discuss the issue and keep it honest.

So, using your number for percentage of the population that is gay or bisexual (2%), which inflates risk because, as I said before, appears to be low. According to other surveys that put the numbers between 3% and 10%. Nonetheless, as you said

323 million people and 2 percent of that is 6.46 million gay or bisexual men

your numbers were
737,000 G or B men have HIV

737,000/6.46 million = 11.4%

the first level screening test 28 days after exposure is 95% accurate

all 737,000 were tested for HIV, after the first round, 36,850 were false negative or 36,850/6.46 million = 0.6%

After the first round, the risk is very low. A second round is recommended 90 days after exposure, which is 99.7% accurate. After the second round, the risk is virtually zero, you can do the math if you like.

http://i-base.info/guides/testing/test-accuracy-results-and-further-testing

 

[ginjawarrior]

I don't do horses. (I couldn't leave that one alone)

First, it was unnecessary to tell me your identity. It's irrelevant to the conversation. I don't care and would have preferred you keep what you didn't want to discuss private. In any case, this doesn't mean you can't be homophobic. My sexuality is irrelevant too. My only care is to discuss the issue and keep it honest.

So, using your number for percentage of the population that is gay or bisexual (2%), which inflates risk because, as I said before, appears to be low. According to other surveys that put the numbers between 3% and 10%. Nonetheless, as you said

323 million people and 2 percent of that is 6.46 million gay or bisexual men

your numbers were
737,000 G or B men have HIV

737,000/6.46 million = 11.4%

the first level screening test is 95% accurate

all 737,000 were tested for HIV, after the first round, 36,850 were false negative or 36,850/6.46 million =

that is still 28 days where they can still be infective and that still leaves 1 porn actor with ten partners and those ten partners having 10 themselves alll within that 28 days and all being within the window for infection

if you take a hiv test it does not garuntee that you are clean at the time when taken...

go get yourself tested see what you get told by the nurse

i have already posted links about this upthread

 

[Fogdog]

it takes 90 days before they can give you a sensible negative(i know that ive been tested regualry and that is what they tell you)

you can be infectious through most of those 90 days

when talking about porn it could be an easy (very easy) 10 partners a month of those 10 partners they too could have had 10 partners too

zero risk is bullshit

it isnt up to you to decide what risk is acceptable for anyone ever to have sex when they do not want to

If people follow guidelines, the risk is practically zero. I've always said virtually zero, not actually zero. Anybody can take the risk down to even more by using a condom.

I don't decide for others. Just saying the issue is trust, not risk.

 

[ginjawarrior]

If people follow guidelines, the risk is practically zero. I've always said virtually zero, not actually zero. Anybody can take the risk down to even more by using a condom.

I don't decide for others. Just saying the issue is trust, not risk.

sex is about trust...

 

[Fogdog]

that is still 28 days where they can still be infective and that still leaves 1 porn actor with ten partners and those ten partners having 10 themselves alll within that 28 days and all being within the window for infection

if you take a hiv test it does not garuntee that you are clean at the time when taken...

go get yourself tested see what you get told by the nurse

i have already posted links about this upthread

I pressed post reply earlier, I finished it if you want to read exactly what I meant to post. I repeat the issue is trust, not risk.

sex is about trust...

Exactly. Don't have sex if you can't trust the partner. Use a condom anyway.

Getting back to the porn actress's dilemma, the issue was that she trusted heterosexual men but not gay men to follow their industry's protocols. Hopefully we now agree that if the protocols were followed, her risk was very very very low regardless of the orientation of her partner. Then again, who says her partner could trust a bipolar, depressive woman who has the sexual history of a porn star?

It's messed up. Also all this discussion regarding risk doesn't change the fact that she did send twitter messages encouraging other workers to avoid sex with gay or bisexual men in her industry. She has the right to say no to a job and it's completely within the rights of gay or bisexual men to be outraged over a fiat accusation that all of them are unsafe to work with. This moves into a workers rights issue.

In any case, @pada2 (who is at no risk for HIV, maybe blisters) has no case when claiming she was driven to suicide by cyber bullying. She had plenty of other problems.

 

[twostrokenut]

If an underwater welder worked for someone else and refused to do the job. They'd be finding a new job after they got fired most likely.

The dead chick took to Twitter like a moron and got upset over the internet like a bigger moron.

But people are using it as a way to blame "cyber bullying"
Her past issues are a bigger part of this than twitter

I agree almost completely except for the getting fired part. the welder would be a private contractor and losing work would depend on the demand....maybe the deeper diver retains a "hazard pay" premium over the other shallow diver and there are plenty of shallow jobs in demand. actors are contractors. contractors aren't open to the public. an NFL player is not obliged to take any job offered, neither is any other contractor.

I agree about the cyber bullying part with you. but the left can't hold both of these positions at the same time like they are doing in this thread imho, those being:

-her body her choice
-hate speech is not free speech

hate speech from the Twitter trolls that tipped her over the edge or what is being misconstrued as hate speech by the deceased that triggered the trolls.

 

[UncleBuck]

I agree almost completely except for the getting fired part. the welder would be a private contractor and losing work would depend on the demand....maybe the deeper diver retains a "hazard pay" premium over the other shallow diver and there are plenty of shallow jobs in demand. actors are contractors. contractors aren't open to the public. an NFL player is not obliged to take any job offered, neither is any other contractor.

I agree about the cyber bullying part with you. but the left can't hold both of these positions at the same time like they are doing in this thread imho, those being:

-her body her choice
-hate speech is not free speech

hate speech from the Twitter trolls that tipped her over the edge or what is being misconstrued as hate speech by the deceased that triggered the trolls.

you voted for a guy who said that certain women were 'too ugly to rape', namely the 30 or 40 who came forward to say trump raped them after trump's infamous "this is how i rape women" tape was leaked.

and you also defend a serial pedophile who thinks homosexuality should be illegal.

so you really should not opine on matters of consent, especially those involving bisexuality.

 

[Fogdog]

I agree almost completely except for the getting fired part. the welder would be a private contractor and losing work would depend on the demand....maybe the deeper diver retains a "hazard pay" premium over the other shallow diver and there are plenty of shallow jobs in demand. actors are contractors. contractors aren't open to the public. an NFL player is not obliged to take any job offered, neither is any other contractor.

I agree about the cyber bullying part with you. but the left can't hold both of these positions at the same time like they are doing in this thread imho, those being:

-her body her choice
-hate speech is not free speech

hate speech from the Twitter trolls that tipped her over the edge or what is being misconstrued as hate speech by the deceased that triggered the trolls.

 

[ginjawarrior]

I pressed post reply earlier, I finished it if you want to read exactly what I meant to post. I repeat the issue is trust, not risk.

Exactly. Don't have sex if you can't trust the partner. Use a condom anyway.

Getting back to the porn actress's dilemma, the issue was that she trusted heterosexual men but not gay men to follow their industry's protocols. Hopefully we now agree that if the protocols were followed, her risk was very very very low regardless of the orientation of her partner. Then again, who says her partner could trust a bipolar, depressive woman who has the sexual history of a porn star?

her depressive history should not be part of this story (apart frm the bit where she was driven to kill herself)

goto her twitter account and she clearly says about not nkowing what people doing in their private lives..

the promiscuous heterosexual side of peoples private lives has a huge amount of less risk than the gay or bisexual promiscuous side has

not everyone follows guidlines and its always been up to her to decide risk

It's messed up. Also all this discussion regarding risk doesn't change the fact that she did send twitter messages encouraging other workers to avoid sex with gay or bisexual men in her industry. She has the right to say no to a job and it's completely within the rights of gay or bisexual men to be outraged over a fiat accusation that all of them are unsafe to work with. This moves into a workers rights issue.

she didnt once encourage other workers to avoid sex with gay people

she just warned them that an agency was lying about about who she was about to sleep with (consent)

go read it again you said it could be read a couple of ways but this time really take of your outrage train specs first..

 

[Fogdog]

her depressive history should not be part of this story (apart frm the bit where she was driven to kill herself)

goto her twitter account and she clearly says about not nkowing what people doing in their private lives..

the promiscuous heterosexual side of peoples private lives has a huge amount of less risk than the gay or bisexual promiscuous side has

not everyone follows guidlines and its always been up to her to decide risk

she didnt once encourage other workers to avoid sex with gay people

she just warned them that an agency was lying about about who she was about to sleep with (consent)

go read it again you said it could be read a couple of ways but this time really take of your outrage train specs first..

You can refuse to read between the lines. In the quote below she's warning the replacement that "he's gay" as in "he's shot gay porn" wink wink nudge nudge. You keep reading some sort of outrage in my posts. I'm not outraged, I'm just pointing out that anybody who is gay or bisexual in the porn industry would feel outraged because their livelihood is threatened.

On December 3 she wrote: "Whichever (lady) performer is replacing me tomorrow... you’re shooting with a guy who has shot gay porn, just to let cha know."

We've gone over the risks. If protocols were followed her actual risks are very very very low. This comes down to a matter of trust. She's basically saying she doesn't trust gay men while she is trusting heterosexual men to follow her industry's protocols. This is a homophobic statement that affects other workers in her industry. This is a statement accusing a fellow worker of being unfit to work with based upon a perception and moves into a worker's rights issue and not a private one.

Turnabout is fair play, however. One could say back: "Whichever performer is working with her tomorrow, you're shooting with a woman who has been manic lately and who knows who she's been doing at odd hours, just to let cha know".

It was completely her right to refuse work. It was completely her right to say what she said over twitter. It was completely reasonable for people who were accused of being unfit to work with to be upset and say so.

 

[ginjawarrior]

You can refuse to read between the lines. In the quote below she's warning the replacement that "he's gay" as in "he's shot gay porn" wink wink nudge nudge. You keep reading some sort of outrage in my posts. I'm not outraged, I'm just pointing out that anybody who is gay or bisexual in the porn industry would feel outraged because their livelihood is threatened.

i refuse to read the message in between the line that others tell me to

99% of the time when i am told something on the intertnet it is wrong. the main reason i even messaged on this thread was because of crappy stats by whoever the poster was

i had a similar situation a while ago when pada posted a thread saying the op was saying something different

i can recognise malice where there is malice but in this case i certainly do not see it

On December 3 she wrote: "Whichever (lady) performer is replacing me tomorrow... you’re shooting with a guy who has shot gay porn, just to let cha know."

We've gone over the risks. If protocols were followed her actual risks are very very very low.

agian this is not about protocols or anything this about HER FUCKING BODY HER FUCKING CHOICE

yours or my numbers mean nothing in this discussion

apart from
HER BODY HER CHOICE


an internet of idiots then jumped on the outrage train with shit like

And she's a porn star, she should take what dick she's told to take.

you havent once turned round and said thats not acceptable

stop trying to justify that movement and your part in it

 

[abandonconflict]

She shouldn't have suggested that other performers avoid working with gay men. In any case it goes to show that this "industry" regularly consumes young women and actively seeks those with emotional instability and psychological problems.

Maybe don't jack off so much. People can boycott meat because of the way animals are treated but don't seem to care when it comes to masturbation...

 

[SneekyNinja]

Jumble the numbers however you like, population statistics remain. Whether the man is gay, bisexual or other, the difference in risk of HIV exposure is practically the same, that is unless you want to obsess over 0.13% higher risk.. With testing, risk from either group does not go to zero but becomes virtually so. A risk the departed woman was taking that she could control was unprotected sex. She clearly didn't understand what the real risks were.

It's completely up to her whether or not to work with somebody else. Where she crossed the line was to tell other female actresses they should boycott movies that included scenes with gay or bisexual men. Those people were reasonably outraged at her threat to their ability to work.

From the emotional response this argument garners, and the way you cherry pick statistics to support your argument, I can only conclude that you have a homophobic preconception of your own. There is no logical or rational response to your emotion. You have to look within yourself to fix that.

This is what I was trying to say all along but my version was a sleep deprived, stoned, mess...

 

[SneekyNinja]

i refuse to read the message in between the line that others tell me to

99% of the time when i am told something on the intertnet it is wrong. the main reason i even messaged on this thread was because of crappy stats by whoever the poster was

i had a similar situation a while ago when pada posted a thread saying the op was saying something different

i can recognise malice where there is malice but in this case i certainly do not see it

agian this is not about protocols or anything this about HER FUCKING BODY HER FUCKING CHOICE

yours or my numbers mean nothing in this discussion

apart from
HER BODY HER CHOICE


an internet of idiots then jumped on the outrage train with shit like

And she's a porn star, she should take what dick she's told to take.

you havent once turned round and said thats not acceptable

stop trying to justify that movement and your part in it

Dude for the record I was intentionally being a dick to annoy you and Padawan because I had you whining like such little bitches with very little effort involved, I thought that was fairly apparent.

 

[ginjawarrior]

She shouldn't have suggested that other performers avoid working with gay men. In any case it goes to show that this "industry" regularly consumes young women and actively seeks those with emotional instability and psychological problems.

Maybe don't jack off so much. People can boycott meat because of the way animals are treated but don't seem to care when it comes to masturbation...

i never knew or saw her before this certainly have never jacked off to her or her work

i just hate the blatent hyprocracy of the people who i thought was on the same side of me you know the ones who respect a persons wishes of what they chose for their bodies

 

[ginjawarrior]

Dude for the record I was intentionally being a dick to annoy you and Padawan because I had you whining like such little bitches with very little effort involved, I thought that was fairly apparent.

for the record you had many post back to show that senitment

for me its too late now

and for her she is dead already

 

[SneekyNinja]

for the record you had many post back to show that senitment

for me its too late now

and for her she is dead already

Tbh I was trying to annoy Pada (cos he's completely lost his mind recently) but you just jumped on the hook too.

I think she was well within her rights to deny the job but surely she had to know that in 2017 her post would face a backlash?

Also I think its totally right that women are free to do whatever they want but its a sad reflection on the state of the nation that emotionally unstable people are forced to engage in porn or prostitution for basic survival.

 

[abandonconflict]

i never knew or saw her before this certainly have never jacked off to her or her work

i just hate the blatent hyprocracy of the people who i thought was on the same side of me you know the ones who respect a persons wishes of what they chose for their bodies

I don't think anyone that you are arguing with are suggesting she didn't have the right to refuse to work with someone. You're the one insisting she didn't make a very thinly veiled suggestion that other performers boycott gay men. I appreciate your dedication to good statistics but there's more to an argument than that. She did cross a line and the Twitter bullying was certainly not the only (or in my opinion even leading) factor in her final emotional breakdown. All I'm arguing is not to let the porn "industry" off the hook or the people who consume so much of it, creating market demand.