How To **** Up Your Life: A Simple Guide

[ErrrorWayz]

I'm really sick of this phenomenon where one person who is maybe dumb but no worse than many others out there gets singled out to be ritually torn apart by the baying mob.

It speaks of just how revolting people are that so many will just jump on any bandwagon for an excuse to vent 'righteous' fury when a supposedly 'acceptable target' is dangled before them

Yep, this, it's why I quit Facebook and have never been on Twitter.

What is even more repugnant, to my mind, if the increasing prevalence of reporting Twitter opinions as "news". I increasingly see articles listed as "X person or thing is evil or wrong" and the 6 screenshots of Twitter posts with a statement or insinuation along of the lines of "see these entirely random people agree, proof!".

 

[ErrrorWayz]

I'm really sick of this phenomenon where one person who is maybe dumb but no worse than many others out there gets singled out to be ritually torn apart by the baying mob.

It speaks of just how revolting people are that so many will just jump on any bandwagon for an excuse to vent 'righteous' fury when a supposedly 'acceptable target' is dangled before them

Yep, this, it's why I quit Facebook and have never been on Twitter.

What is even more repugnant, to my mind, if the increasing prevalence of reporting Twitter opinions as "news". I increasingly see articles listed as "X person or thing is evil or wrong" and the 6 screenshots of Twitter posts with a statement or insinuation along of the lines of "see these entirely random people agree, proof!".

Meanwhile I'm just fascinated by people who don't pay attention to the difference between a news piece, and a blog, but still take the time to *****.

"Why isn't this fence post delicious?! I'm eating it!"

Um.. I may have missed your point, sorry if so, but although this is linked as a "blog", it's front and centre on the BBC website (or was, I actually saw this before the post) which is the 102 most popular global website and 6th in the UK. It's not a "blog" in the sense of a personal page of opinion, it's an ongoing collection of internet events collated by the BBC and I personally don't feel this sort of "reporting" should be given the weight of the BBC's name, nor am I especially chuffed to have to pay ?145.50 + inflation, annually, for the next 11 years in unavoidable tax to fund this sort of thing.

It just seems really unpleasant to fund coverage (and add to by proxy) these deeply unedifying witch hunts against individuals who often just stumble into upsetting people through stupidity, accident or simply having honestly held unfashionable views. Maybe you feel differently? Maybe you think this woman deserves it and the BBC is offering a valuable public service, that's your right but I don't feel it's bitching to point out the whole affair seems tawdry to me.

 

[Terminal Marque]

Why is she clearly delusional? She has a number of possible motives that don't require delusions, just a shitty conscience and poor planning.

Admittedly, this is true. Maybe she's just trying to be manipulative. Maybe completely she's aware of all the enormous cliches and bizarre narcissistic bullshit she's coming out with but believes, in a very tactical sense, that the general public will lap it up. Indeed, the truly scary thing is that it seems like before this took off on African twitter, she was pretty spot on the mark. The reviews and commentary on her book was generally positive, as mentioned, she had an excerpt published in a "good" newspaper. The fact that noone did the basic fact checking required or even just picked up on the stereotypically bad "how not to write about Africa" shtick is pretty terrifying.

However, a person who actually believed the things she wrote, and simply the events (which were fictional), but the self-concept, estimation of your own importance and general conceit about the whole meaning of the development work in which this woman was, whatever her current position, apparently seriously involved, not to mention of course the whole rationalization of outright lying about the political situation as a country as somehow paying tribute or a gesture of love would be delusional. In this sense, she is either delusional or is pretending to be delusional, and I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

In cases where someone stands to directly benefit from lying, it usually pays not to assume that they believe what they're saying. There is no more reason to take her response to this at face value, than to take her other writing. She may simply have arrogantly believed that 'a bunch of Africans' would never see her book, or have the means to express outrage. She may be clinical in a number of ways (Axis II) which would lead her to wrongly believe she wouldn't be caught. She wouldn't be delusional, but that doesn't mean she isn't a piece of work.

 

[Yopaz]

I have a PhD in biology from a world-class university. I am well aware of rubbish like the anti-vaxx movement and anti-medicine in general you really don't have to point it out to me. And it is constantly and repeatedly called out as dangerous nonsense at high volume by me personally and people like me whenever it is brought up anywhere by anyone. There is a reason Andrew Wakefield has been struck off.

I don't see how this is relevant to the topic. You made a statement and I criticized it. I haven't criticized your background, I have criticized what you said. Using degree to browbeat people is common among those who don't really have better arguments to support their case though. Robert Holford was criticized because he made statements about health with no roots in published research and he replied in a similar way that you just did.

So I don't know who the 'we focus on this' is referring to here; speak for yourself if you wish, but please don't presume to speak for my own reactions. I am capable of having opinions on more than one thing at the same time and this is pretty reminiscent of the starving african children fallacy. It is possible to both disapprove of what this woman is doing and also disapprove of and roundly denounce the anti-pharmaceutical movement.

When someone asked "Why do we focus on this" you replied "Because she is selling her book for 7.99 on Amazon". Paraphrased, but this is the gist of it. I am not making presumptions, I am directly criticising something you said.

Yes, they absolutely should be ignored. But on the whole people are easily misled particularly when big-name celebrities are supporting their ideas; and conspiracy theories are alluring with their sense of 'inclusiveness'. Hence the reactions to "Big Pharma".

Well, the problem is that when people publish bullshit and get ignored it soon fades away. If it receives criticism (either good or bad) it gets attention. Attention is always a good thing when selling a bad product. Publishers know this all to well and they know that quality and facts are of no concern to profits. As long as it gets attention it will sell. As long as it sells it will get published.

I don't really see a point in discussing this further. This part clearly indicates that we agree on what's important even if we might be in disagreement of the little things.

 

[Lightspeaker]

I don't see how this is relevant to the topic. You made a statement and I criticized it. I haven't criticized your background, I have criticized what you said. Using degree to browbeat people is common among those who don't really have better arguments to support their case though. Robert Holford was criticized because he made statements about health with no roots in published research and he replied in a similar way that you just did.

I don't quite get your personal attacks here to be honest. You directly challenged me using something totally off-topic that I happen to be extremely aware about, thanks to my background. Thus I mention said background to demonstrate that I know what I'm talking about and that I DO address that...but that's not what we're addressing here. Bringing it up is directly relevant, and absolutely has roots "in published research". Do you want me to start pulling up papers I've read demonstrating that vaccines don't cause autism or something? I seriously don't know what you want from me here. I'm not browbeating ANYONE, I'm factually demonstrating I know about said thing, most likely more than most people on this site. But that still doesn't make it a relevant point.

This is like bringing up something to do with the law in a conversation, then the other person saying they know about that because they're a judge, and then you accuse them of 'browbeating' you with their qualifications. I mean...I am seriously confused what your endgame is here. Why the ad hominem? I swear this forum is just more abusive and aggressive by the day...

When someone asked "Why do we focus on this" you replied "Because she is selling her book for 7.99 on Amazon". Paraphrased, but this is the gist of it. I am not making presumptions, I am directly criticising something you said.

And...? Again, I have no idea where you're going with this.

To use another analogy: Its like going into the thread about the police shooting in Dallas over in R&P that I just posted in and starting to shout at people "Why are you focusing on this when there's people being shot in Iraq and Afghanistan every day?" With a side-order implication of "don't you care about this?"

You are implying I don't care about one thing because I DO care about another. Seriously, what?

Well, the problem is that when people publish bullshit and get ignored it soon fades away. If it receives criticism (either good or bad) it gets attention. Attention is always a good thing when selling a bad product. Publishers know this all to well and they know that quality and facts are of no concern to profits. As long as it gets attention it will sell. As long as it sells it will get published.

Perhaps, but an unchallenged falsehood is generally more dangerous than leaving it be. Even if challenging it brings it more attention. Its the reason that people keep challenging the anti-vaxx movement. Its the old "lie can run around the world before the truth has its boots on" thing; all too often the truth is playing catch-up.

I don't really see a point in discussing this further. This part clearly indicates that we agree on what's important even if we might be in disagreement of the little things.

Which makes me even more confused as to why, exactly, you're making this effort to attack me personally. Have you got a grudge against me or something?


Edit: Actually, never mind the questions. I'm not going to return to this thread. I'm not sure what I did here for people to attack me personally but my anxiety is hitting pretty hard today so I'm out.

 

[Yopaz]

I don't quite get your personal attacks here to be honest. You directly challenged me using something totally off-topic

I challenged your statement that we should focus on this because others don't sell books. I simply stated that others do and with more harmful effects. I don't see that as being off topic.

that I happen to be extremely aware about, thanks to my background. Thus I mention said background to demonstrate that I know what I'm talking about and that I DO address that...but that's not what we're addressing here.

Your background has no relevance to the statement you made which I criticized. That was on the matter of a book containing false information and why we should give it attention.

Bringing it up is directly relevant, and absolutely has roots "in published research". Do you want me to start pulling up papers I've read demonstrating that vaccines don't cause autism or something? I seriously don't know what you want from me here.

I know vaccines cause autism. I have read several of the articles myself. This isn't something I have stated, I haven't mentioned vaccines. I mentioned that Robert Holford dismissed criticism by hiding behind a degree and using the "I have worked with this, you haven't" to avoid adressing what he was actually being criticized for. You are doingthe same. Also you accused me of making presumptions. Why are you asking if I want proof of the effects of vaccinations? Prior to this post I haven't written the word vaccine even once. Now you are almost treating me as I am anti-vaccine. I am a biologist too, I didn't bring it up because it wasn't relevant, but you treat me as if I am an idiot.

What do I want from you? I want you to explain exactly what you meant in your first post. Why should we give this book any kind of attention when there's so much worse. I haven't asked your education and in fact, it is irrelevant outside of context. You can be wrong just like anyone else. Linus Pauling received the nobel prize in chemistry and has contributed to the discovery of the DNA double helix structure, no doubt that he has been a great contributor to science. That is why people trusted him when he told us to eat lots of vitamins to prevent disease and live forever. We should learn to not trust anyone based on degrees or fame. We should always be critical. That is why bringing up your degree to defend your original statement is irrelvant. It didn't even have anything to do with biology so it's not even your field. See the difference? I am not criticizing your education, nor am I criticizing published research, I am criticizing a post you made here on this forum. Stop dodging the subject.

I'm not browbeating ANYONE

Then why not just stick to the topic? Why bring up your degree and state the importance of it and why I shouldn't argue with you? You don't know my background at all either. I will admit that I don't have a PhD yet, but I am currently working on it.

I'm factually demonstrating I know about said thing, most likely more than most people on this site. But that still doesn't make it a relevant point.

No, you aren't factually demonstrating that you know more than most people. You are doding an issue by bringing up your degree rather than adressing the essence of what I criticized. Why should we focus on this book?

This is like bringing up something to do with the law in a conversation, then the other person saying they know about that because they're a judge, and then you accuse them of 'browbeating' you with their qualifications. I mean...I am seriously confused what your endgame is here. Why the ad hominem? I swear this forum is just more abusive and aggressive by the day...

No, it's not the same. If I am asking a judge about a law then I expect that he knows more than me about it. If I ask a judge why we should focus on a book that's complete utter bullshit and he says "Because I am a judge and I know better than you" then he is doing the same thing that you are doing now. I am not asking you about biology, I am asking you about books and why we should focus on bullshit books being published. Unless your degree was in book publishing (which is unlikely since that isn't a part of biology where I come from) it is irrelevant. I accuse you of browbeating because you bring up your degree when it's not relevant.

And...? Again, I have no idea where you're going with this.

I am paraphrasing the statement that I am criticizing because you went off on a tangent and did't once address it. I am telling you to stop dodging the criticism by bringing up your degree.

To use another analogy: Its like going into the thread about the police shooting in Dallas over in R&P that I just posted in and starting to shout at people "Why are you focusing on this when there's people being shot in Iraq and Afghanistan every day?" With a side-order implication of "don't you care about this?"

You are implying I don't care about one thing because I DO care about another. Seriously, what?

Fair point, I apologize since I wasn't clear. I am asking why we are focusing on this book because it doesn't hurt anyone. It's complete bullshit, maybe a delusion, but worst case scenario no-one is hurt by reading it.

Perhaps, but an unchallenged falsehood is generally more dangerous than leaving it be. Even if challenging it brings it more attention. Its the reason that people keep challenging the anti-vaxx movement. Its the old "lie can run around the world before the truth has its boots on" thing; all too often the truth is playing catch-up.

I agree, but leave the criticism to those who are qualified. It minimizes attention and it minimizes the crazies. Crazies make people shy away from what they have to say even if it is correct. I have a friend who's actually made a name for herself in the anti-vaccine movement because they know she will pounce on everything they say. She is well educated and she knows what she talks about, but she comes off as too rabid for those we need to worry about to take her seriously. It's important that those who address these people are both good scientists and good mediators.

Which makes me even more confused as to why, exactly, you're making this effort to attack me personally. Have you got a grudge against me or something?

I haven't once made a personal attack on you. I said bringing up your degree was irrelvant to your statement. Your statement wasn't about biology. I agree with what you think about the publishing of dangerous books, its effect on the amnti-vaccination movement and that is what I consider the big thing. We disagree on how to handle it, which I consider a small thing. Despite saying this you still asked if I wanted to see published research on it. Now you see that is a presumption. I HAVEN'T MADE A SINGLE STATEMENT AGAINST VACCINES, but you have said the statement I am criticizing.

 

[Pickles]

This reminds me of my time in Vietnam. Was 1963 and I was only 17, about an hour's flight out of Saigon and I came across a town of orphans that where about to be sold off to China by the Viet Kong until I dispatched them.

Now some will point out I "wouldn't be born for another three decades" or "have never set foot in Asia", but those are just minor details that are easy to mix up, like being a US Secretary forgetting that your trip to Bosnia was uneventful instead of under sniper fire.

Zontar, what the FUCK does this have to do with Vietnam man? Face it, there isn't any connection. Your Roll.

Well this lady went to an African country, and I figure Vietnam is right next to Cambodia and that's in Africa, right? So there's your connection.

What the fuck are you-?

Zontar, the Chinaman is not the issue here! Jeffrey Lebowski, the other Jeffrey Lebowski, the Millionair! And here's my point, Dude, He is in the wealth, obviously has the resources so theres no reason THERE IS NO FUCKING REASON his wife should go out and owe money all over town, and then they come and pee on your fucking rug!

AM I WRONG?!

Okay then... That rug really tied the room together, did it not?

look Dude, I get you're upset about your rug and all. But you need to look at the bigger picture.
Zontar clearly waltzed in and ruined a vietnamese rug that tied the whole country together.

You could just be sitting at home with pee stains on your rug but they don't have that luxury. The story is ludicrous.

You're being very undude.