"“A new drug that gives almost complete protection against the virus was to be administered across Africa this year,” the report reads. “Now, much of the funding for that effort is gone.”"
And that's because this administration wants people with the virus to die, especially if those people are black.
They don't actively want these people to die, they just don't give a shit. This is not meant as an excuse or anything--it is just me pointing out that most of these people (both the politicians and their donors, and their supporters just flat out do not care about anything that doesn't immediately affect them. Period.
There IS a rhetorical distinction (that is actually key here, in the psychology behind this), but not an actual distinction. It is the rhetorical distinction that allows them to feel okay (for those that MIGHT feel something) for doing it.
People dying because of this are just incidental outcomes arising from unfortunate circumstances. If these people were "decent people" they wouldn't have or wouldn't expose themselves to HIV/AIDs--and wouldn't need the drugs, so it's THEIR fault... and not our responsibility.
That is the thought process (though not usually explicit only implicit) in this.
Blaming the victim is just another psychological defense mechanism/justification for shitty behavior.
"“A new drug that gives almost complete protection against the virus was to be administered across Africa this year,” the report reads. “Now, much of the funding for that effort is gone.”"
And that's because this administration wants people with the virus to die, especially if those people are black.
They don't actively want these people to die, they just don't give a shit. This is not meant as an excuse or anything--it is just me pointing out that most of these people (both the politicians and their donors, and their supporters just flat out do not care about anything that doesn't immediately affect them. Period.
Can you feel the love?
And secretly if it is only poor people, then there is a savings of welfare money. “No man. No problem.” Stalin.
There is no rhetorical distinction between not actively wanting people to die and taking a course of action that will result in people dying.
There IS a rhetorical distinction (that is actually key here, in the psychology behind this), but not an actual distinction. It is the rhetorical distinction that allows them to feel okay (for those that MIGHT feel something) for doing it.
People dying because of this are just incidental outcomes arising from unfortunate circumstances. If these people were "decent people" they wouldn't have or wouldn't expose themselves to HIV/AIDs--and wouldn't need the drugs, so it's THEIR fault... and not our responsibility.
That is the thought process (though not usually explicit only implicit) in this.
Blaming the victim is just another psychological defense mechanism/justification for shitty behavior.
No love like Evangelical Christian love!
We all know what he called those countries so why would he care about the people who live there.