I'm not sure what gives you the idea that HIV is biologically unique or bizarre. There are lots of immune deficiencies, retroviruses, and persistent infections, both in animals and humans.
With all the research money poured into HIV research, it's taken them 20 years to notice this?
Because medical research is hard. What you ignorantly refer to as "noticing" requires a lot of skill, insight, and hard work to discover.
And this doesn't invalidate prior approaches to HIV treatment: targeting the virus has been rational and effective, no matter how it ultimately does its damage.
You live in a convenient fictional world in which the Nazis "came to power" and afterwards imposed their will through totalitarian rule. That's the kind of rewriting of history Germans like, because it makes the whole thing appear like the Nazis were something that just happened. In reality, Germans democratically elected the Nazis and democratically chose to enact the Enabling Act. Part of the reason the Nazis could get enough of a majority in parliament is because they could impose restrictions on political opponents before the Enabling Act. What happened after the passing of the Enabling Act is not relevant to discussions of free speech in a democracy, because Germany had ceased to be a democracy that point.
The whole thing started with your statement:
Europe has some rather strict hate crime laws because of a certain incident that happened during the 30s and 40s. It'd be nice if they had strong free speech laws, but their history has led them down a different path.
You still fail to grasp that it was these kinds of "strict laws" that allowed European democracy to self-destruct in the first place. You can't prevent totalitarianism by restricting liberty; the failure of the Weimar Republic illustrates that (although it is by no means the only example). And until "morons" (your word) like you in Europe grasp that, European democracies will continue to fail.
He never said that they ran on a racist platform, nor did I, so please don't put words in our mouths. Rather, as both you and he said, they appealed to the Southern racists, which is quite a bit different
This is what he said:
When they reformed, the Republicans eagerly took their place as the party of Southern racism, which is where they are today.
This is implies deliberate and strong intent to attract racist elements, and suggests that the Republican party as a whole espouses racist principles. The weasely language in which it is couched doesn't change that. Democrats should knock that sh*t off, it is offensive. And I say that as someone who has never voted for a Republican.
Are you serious? You believe that it is "commonly accepted" that the Republicans ran on a racist platform and are a racist party? Give me a break.
Republicans have a long-standing record of support for states' rights; the fact that this may have also appealed to Southern racists and that the Republican strategists probably counted on it doesn't make Republicans racist, any more than appealing to any of the unsavory groups that both parties appeal to means that the parties support those goals.
I have never voted for a Republican in my life. But people need to snap out of these simplistic caricatures of their political opponents if we want to make progress in this country. What matters is what parties promise each election, what they stand for, and what they actually deliver.
There are plenty of explanations of what is wrong with that story; use Google.
One fundamental logical error is to assume that because a small, decentralized government message may have appeal to racists (because they might hope to reintroduce racist policies in local and state elections) that that makes the message itself racist.
What you've just described is what they did afterwards.
Afterwards? After what? Every restriction on speech and liberty in Germany was democratically passed by German parliament, including the previous incarnations of several of the major parties today, until the very last restriction, the Enabling Act of 1933, in which parliament voluntarily gave Hitler total power. The justification was always that it was "for the good of the country". After that, Hitler merely exercised the executive power parliament had given him.
It's history, "motherfucker [sic]", you should read up on it.
Just because you don't know what those laws are, understand how or why they came about, or how their application works, doesn't mean they necessarily need to be reformed.
I do understand where they come from: they are part of a centuries-long tradition of repressing free speech and enforcing conformity and obedience to the ruling classes. They have been used by European monarchs, dictators, and totalitarians to establish and maintain their control over European nations, often resulting in genocide and war. And just because Europeans have been massively indoctrinated in their public education systems and media to believe that this is proper and good doesn't mean that it actually is.
That's not a "history lesson", it's a convenient Democratic rewriting of history. Democrats have simply adopted a political strategy of branding anybody a "racist" who doesn't agree with their particular form of racial and welfare politics.
I think the only possible response to your drivel is that any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from sarcasm.
There has to be a minimum agreed common ground in the social compact that is civilization and governance.
That "common ground" does not include protection from being offended, and it does not include protection from other people hating you or ostracizing you.
People like you are why people like Hitler and Stalin come to power.
Europe has some rather strict hate crime laws because of a certain incident that happened during the 30s and 40s.
These kinds of laws would make sense if the problem in Nazi Germany had been that individuals were racist and committing crimes against each other while the German government was powerless to intervene. But that's not what happened.
What happened in Nazi Germany was that an overly powerful German government was passing laws restricting free speech, restricting political protests, restricting the right to bear arms, taking away property from minorities, and exercising its power to commit genocide on minorities. Nazi Germany happened because the state had too much power over the people, not too little.
If government power in Germany had been limited to the protection of individual rights (life, liberty, property, free speech, political participation), the genocide could not have happened because the genocide was something that required the German state and government as an essential component.
It'd be nice if they had strong free speech laws, but their history has led them down a different path.
Europe is on the same path it has always been; it just has been temporarily shamed into electing less murderous leaders. Don't count on that lasting.
Progressives are wrong in their support of Arabs, but right wingers are wrong in their support of Israel too. They are wrong because both sides try to manipulate the US and use US power to achieve political goals that we as a nation have no interest in. And using historically loaded terms like "antisemitism" to manipulate US political debates is just reprehensible.
However, your "free speech" can be noted by the bots that slurp data on social networks (even that marked private), flag you as "racist" and ensure a job-free future
Free speech is only supposed to guarantee that government doesn't abuse its power in response to what you say. Your fellow citizens (and that includes the businesses they run) are free to ostracize you if they don't like what you say. That is also part of a free society.
(And businesses would likely be less picky about this if they faced less liability for racist conduct by employees at work due to anti-discrimination and other laws.)