this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Today I learned

7870 readers
8 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I never went as far as to defend Gwyneth Paltrow, but after her Hot Ones appearance I created a post (which I will link in the comments) where I suggested that she's done no more harm than male grifters and that the dislike of her as a person was primarily due to misogyny. That's before I learned about her promotion of these unproven "vampire facials". Now an unlicensed clinic performing this procedure has given at least three women HIV. You guys were right and I was wrong.

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I mean, yeah, she's to blame for promoting an obviously batshit crazy process, but she was NOT involved with any of the facilities distributing HIV. That's a bit of a stretch.

It would be like, I dunno, blaming your favorite tattooed celebrity because you got hepatitis c from some back alley artist.

[–] sgibson5150@slrpnk.net 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I see what you're saying, but the treatment is unproven even under sanitary conditions and she probably helped make people aware of it using her largish social media platform. I say she deserves at least some of the blame.

[–] psud@aussie.zone -1 points 6 months ago

So? When done safely perhaps it offers no benefit and very little risk - kind of like a tattoo

Maybe it does work. We don't know.

[–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Tbf, it's more like the tattooed celebrity was promoting back alley artists. It's a weird middle ground

[–] psud@aussie.zone -1 points 6 months ago

I understand that she said it was a good and helpful procedure.

I don't think it's at all fair to say she told people to go to unlicensed places

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 months ago

I don't disagree, but this kind of post isn't really in the spirit of TIL

[–] Letstakealook@lemm.ee 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Your default assumption is that any criticism of a woman must be misogyny? Even when that woman's actions primarily impact women's health? Interesting.

[–] ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social -1 points 6 months ago

This line of reasoning doesn't make sense. Haters being worse to women than men specifically because of gender has nothing to do with what that person actually does.

[–] MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I wasn't aware of her existence or that of the vampire facials, but this is some Carmilla stuff. Next they will tell you they need virgin blood.

[–] sgibson5150@slrpnk.net 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Agreed. A bit skeevy on the face of it. I've often wondered if something like that is why Dick Cheney is still alive. "Bring in the next snackrifice!" Ugh.

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 months ago

In the show "Silicon Valley", a satire of it's namesake, there's a billionaire tech ceo (like Google level) who gets weekly blood transfusions from a college student in great health.

If you'd kindly adjust your tinfoil hat, there's a lot of conspiracy theories out there that blood transfusions from healthy young people are a regular "health service" used by the elite.

[–] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

There's a phrase for that: Counterjerking too hard. Judging by the reactions you're getting from this, seems you've done it twice in a row.

Remember, counterjerking is not a principled stance; those who stand for nothing will fall for everything.

[–] knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml -1 points 6 months ago

Still no worse than the worst of the male grifters.