Jonathan Larson had AIDS? No. Right?- Page 2

[logan0215]

Posted: 7/3/09 at 8:48am

It clearly isn't that moronic if the misconception is as widespread as university professors. Someone making a fairly understandable assumption about the circumstances of a public figure's death based on the little knowledge we have of their personal life (read: the nature of their published works) is not idiotic and, by the looks of this thread, has helped to correct the misconception, so perhaps the name-calling can be curbed. Yes: more research should have been conducted before coming into an argument like this, but in the heat of the moment in conversation most people will use information they assume to be true. I think this is one of those moments.

Some of the explosive responses on this thread actually come off quite offensive toward the positive community.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/3/09 at 9:03am

I disagree. It is the ill-informed professor and Ben Kaye's insitent friend who displayed HIV-phobia.

[logan0215]

Posted: 7/3/09 at 9:05am

Incorrectly thinking someone has HIV who does not is HIV-phobic? That's absurd.

So if I thought that Abraham Lincoln was killed by colon cancer instead of assassination, I would be colon cancer-phobic?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/3/09 at 9:38am

I have no idea what your point is about Lincoln and colon cancer.

But from the beginning of the AIDS crisis, there have been attempts to marginalize the HIV community by saying that anyone who lent support to people with HIV, HIV fundraising or HIV research had to have HIV. That marginalization was fueled by AIDS-phobia and its goal was successful for most of the 1980s.

People like Ben Kaye's friend who continues to insist on HIV being the cause of death of someone as famous for his support of people with HIV--even after she is informed otherwise--is clearly displaying obstinacy, idiocy or HIV-phobia. Take your pick.

The college musical-theater professor, if indeed that story is true, is woefully ill-informed.

[logan0215]

Posted: 7/3/09 at 10:26am

The point of my example was pointing out that calling out of people who incorrectly assumed someone died of HIV who did not "displayed HIV-phobia" vilifies those who may just be, as you put it, misinformed.

I don't think that the friend nor the professor were insisting that Larson had HIV/AIDS because of his support of those with the syndrome. In this case I don't think there was any malice or marginalization at play. I do think that people's explosive insistence that he did not borders on HIV-phobia because yes, HIV/AIDS is not something to be desired, but it is also an affliction that can be lived with and still afford people the opportunity to be functioning members of society and their responses seem to imply that assuming one has HIV/AIDS is defamatory.

There is also a big difference between making said assumption about people who support those HIV/AIDS versus those who create musicals based on their personal experiences where a portion of the characters are afflicted. The title and presentation of this thread may have been a bit brash, but it certainly isn't a misconception with no base.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/3/09 at 10:39am

I think both Ben Kaye's friend and the professor are idiots, each in her and his own special way, but each still definitely an idiot.