#nearly unironic endorsement

[the-greatest-fool]

Plan for fighting the loneliness crisis, saving pluralism and liberalism, and reigniting the spirit of democracy: more parties (maybe less drinking, though *I* certainly like it), more sports, more concerts, more volunteering, more churches even.

We need to bring back the sense of common good and social bonding with our horizontal neighbors, no matter their background. Maybe then we’ll start inculcate an ethic of community again.

Do whatever it takes to make people have fun with people again, send tweet.

not even as a joke i think we should be encouraging partying for the sake of public health. like it is exercise it's community it's socialization it's mindful it's present it gets people off their phones and tuned in to each other.. we all need to go out

[bitter-sweet-coffee]

Sounds so much clearer when you put it like that. It's not overly sappy,but it's also not a problematic ship! Good to know

hi anon thank you but please never ever use the word “problematic” again. please. i am not being aggressive or condescending, and i don’t just mean this just in terms of my posts. rant incoming, don’t take it personally i promise i’m not mad at you.

please, everyone reading this, STOP using “problematic” to unironically describe pieces art. there are better words.

if a ship is abusive, as in, depicts an actual form of abuse that you can match to the real legal and psychological definitions of abuse, call it an ABUSIVE ship. not problematic.

if a ship is something that a lot of people write poorly, in a way that glorifies abusive behaviour, call it a POORLY WRITTEN abusive ship.

if a ship contains something like an imbalanced power dynamic or significant age gap that is intended to be negative, call it a PREDATORY ship.

ultimately, when people use the word “problematic” they are reducing an entire conversation about form, content, and immersion, to an inappropriate bastardization of what it means to engage with art. you are LITERALLY fucking with the integral structure of the art-artist-audience relationship which transcends all mediums.

if a ship at its core is flawed, then say that.

if a ship is portrayed in an intentionally unhealthy way, as this is part of the message an artist wants to convey, then SAY THAT AND DON’T EQUATE THE ARTIST TO THE CONTENTS OF THEIR WORK! rather, engage in a discussion about how this can develop characters or tie into larger themes. alternatively, you can discuss the approach the artist used, how you view their methods, and state your opinion on how effective you find the outcome to be.

and most importantly, if a ship is written poorly because the author unintentionally glorifies morally grey or even immoral behaviour… this is still not problematic. it is inevitable, because everything that exists is capable of being misinterpreted or misrepresented. do not attack a person for what they do not know, instead, use this as an opportunity for an educative dialogue. or just block them idgaf

the moral of this response: please, if you find yourself using the word problematic, stop. think about what you actually mean to say. do not generalize, because that’s how you get art which depicts and endorses immorality equated to “someone’s au that i saw on twitter made sonic an alcoholic which promotes underage drinking, and i want them to leave the internet before they poison the innocent minds of children and trigger a bunch of recovering addicts” when these are not NEARLY the same thing.

shadow and infinite are morally flawed, as everyone is. you can write them being abusive. you can write them being so abusive that it borders on snuff. you can also woobify them and ruin their characters in the process. or, you can do what i do and throw in a bit of everything with a splash of insane lore and references to other media. BECAUSE THIS IS HOW FICTION WORKS!

fiction is a sandbox. you can build a castle, draw a dick in it, flood it with water, eat the sand, craft it into glass, shit on it, or leave without contributing anything. but regardless of what you do, it is a sandbox. don’t reduce it to just what one person did with it.

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

Michael After Midnight: Natural Born Killers

Long before Joker taught us that we lived in a society… there was Mickey and Mallory Knox.

Natural Born Killers is a satire that focuses on the relationship between crime, media, and pop culture, and how the latter two make the former a hugely exacerbated issue. This movie is from 1994, mind you. In 1994 a movie came out talking about how the media sensationalizes murder and violence to the point where perpetrators become household names and counterculture icons years before Columbine happened, years before the internet made it horrendously easy to find access to gruesome true crime stuff, it was just a film that was absolutely ahead of its time! And yet… as is the norm for works like this, some people take it at face value, because no matter how blatant or obvious a satire is (and trust me, “subtle” is one thing this movie IS NOT), some people take things too far. The thing is, in this case, “too far” translates to “actively committed horrible murders in twisted tribute to the main characters of this film.”

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves; let’s look at the actual substance of the film, first and foremost. 

The movie is actually an altered version of an exploitation screenplay written by none other than Quentin Tarantino, Mr. Foot Fetish himself. Tarantino has gone n record as absolutely loathing this movie due to the extensive rewrites and unlike the other screenplay he wrote but did not direct, True Romance, he refuses to acknowledge this as part of his Tarantinoverse. Here’s the thing, though: I honestly think whatever Tarantino had planned for this would not nearly have been as memorable as this movie is. Yes, this movie is over the top and really beats you over the head with its message, but I think the performances and surrealism really carry it, the latter in particular being something I think Tarantino would not have utilized well. Tarantino does a lot of things well, but he doesn’t do surrealism, at least not to the extent Oliver Stone does in this movie.

Perhaps the best example of this surrealism is the sitcom-style flashback sequence, which shows our leading lady Mallory’s shitty home life before she met Mickey and began her career as a serial killer. There’s a laugh track, an offbeat corny vibe, and Rodney Dangerfield is even here playing Mallory’s dad! Haha, so wacky! He’s a rapist who abuses his own daughter and is absolutely horrifyingly creepy! It’s actually a brilliant use of an actor playing against type; it kind of reminds me of how they used Jon Lovitz in Southland Tales, except this movie is marginally less insane and is legitimately good rather than hilariously bad. The entire sequence, and numerous other chunks of the movie, feel like an insanely bad trip, and that’s exactly what I appreciate about it. I’m a big fan of surreal movies in general (I love Lynch’s Eraserhead and unironically love Death Bed, for instance), and the fact that this one has such a solid message underneath it all helps a lot.

Of course, the surrealism only gets you so far, and Rodney Dangerfield is only in a small part of the movie; who’s carrying it the rest of the time? Well, we have our leads played by Juliette Lewis and Woody Harrelson, with Harrelson in particular defining his career for the next couple of decades with this role. Gone is the lovable idiot from Cheers, here is the crazy gun-toting violent loner we’d see in just about every role he’d play after this.Even to this day, this is still one of my favorite roles of his. Rounding out the rest of the cast are the likes of Robert Downey Jr., Tommy Lee Jones, and Tom Sizemore, all doing the jobs they need to do excellently.

So overall, this is a very good movie, with a great cast, lots of surrealism, and a message about how the media just loves to glorify murderers that resonates strongly today. Still, there are some problems with the movie, such as the lack of subtlety. I get that with a message like this it might be best to not hide it behind smoke and mirrors, but I really feel like Stone could have reeled it in a little bit and still made an effective movie. Sure, I think Tarantino is a moron for hating the sitcom sequence, which is absolutely the highlight of the film, but seriously, some of this could have been dialed back, particularly the ending bits which do drag on a fair bit and at the point they occur are kind of beating the moral into the ground. I also feel like the fact Mickey and Mallory get away with everything is a bit of an awkward ending, especially since an alternate cut has them killed by another killer, but at the same time it might be surmised that Stone may have done as many audience members did and just liked Mickey and Mallory too much to kill them… ironically falling prey to the very thing his movie is raging against.

Ah, but now comes the elephant in the room… unlike movies like Joker, which journalists seem to really want to inspire shootings and violence, this movie ACTUALLY DID inspire killings perpetrated by sickos who decided to emulate the characters in the film. Most of it was done by teenagers, which means yes, there are a lot of school shootings tied to this, and yes, the Columbine cunts are one of the copycats listed on the Wikipedia page. It’s honestly depressing this movie inspired so many sick fucks to commit murder and become glorified for doing so that it warrants an entire Wikipedia page. Again, though, I really don’t want to put a lot of blame on the film here, because the movie is so relentlessly in-your-face about what the moral is that it kind of baffles me how anyone could misconstrue it so badly as to see it as an endorsement for murder. Maybe it just worked a bit too well at highlighting the problem of sensationalization of violent crime in the media, and when twisted minds see a movie saying “This is bad that the media does this!” they end up just hearing “...the media does this!” and from there go to horrible extremes to achieve the very fame the movie is telling you is disgusting and abhorrent.

I still definitely think this movie is good, and if you can stomach intense violence and preachiness that would make Parker and Stone blush and turn away, and you also have a taste for surrealism, this is a really solid film, one I’d argue is one of the best films of the 90s even. It does a lot well, but I feel like its legacy was unfortunately muddied by the very worst kind of fan you could possibly have, which has led to the movie having a weird level of obscurity where it isn’t unknown, but I hardly ever see it talked about on the same level as other 90s films. It’s definitely not a film that teenagers or anyone who hasn’t fully developed their moral compass or critical thinking skills should watch, but it’s definitely an underappreciated classic, albeit one whose underappreciated nature is understandable due to the numerous tragedies attached to its name. It isn’t the movie’s fault at all, but when the Columbine cunts are citing you as inspiration… it’s hard to ever really detach yourself from that.

[joshuajacksonlyblog]

This Eerie Fractal Shows Why Bitcoin’s Price Could Soon Crash By 20%

Over the past week, Bitcoin (BTC) has started to show signs of weakness after a 40% uptrend in a month. Since establishing a $9,200 multi-month around seven days ago, the price of the leading digital asset has plummeted by 11% to $8,200, where it trades as of the time of writing this. Although the price drop has seemingly found a local bottom, with the selling pressure abating, an eerie fractal proposed by a top Bitcoin analyst says it’s only a matter of time before BTC falls dozens of percent from here. Ouch. Bitcoin Could Soon Plunge Dozens of Percent Over the past few weeks, Bitcoin has broken out from key downtrends, rallying by dozens of percent since the $6,400 bottom registered in December of last year. Although this has been decisively bullish price action, countless analysts have noted that the breakout we are seeing is eerily reminiscent of the infamous “China Pump” in October 2019, when President Xi Jinping’s endorsement of blockchain sent Bitcoin 40% higher. 40% higher in a day. Similarities were seen in a number of indicators, in the directionality of the move, and how the price action was formed. And according to a recent analysis by Cold Blooded Shiller — a full-time crypto trader — the similarities go even further than that, suggesting that BTC may tumble by dozens of percent from here. Night night, forever. pic.twitter.com/reS29pZEtq — Cold Blooded Shiller (@ColdBloodShill) January 25, 2020 He noted in the tweet above that when Bitcoin started to unwind after the China pump of yesteryear, the price hastily bounced off the 200-day exponential moving average (EMA) then was rejected from a key support/”supply” level, to only plunge through the same moving average. This ping-ponging in the price of BTC last year preceded a strong crash from $8,700 to $6,400 in a few weeks’ time, marking a drop of 27%. This is relevant because Bitcoin has done the exact same thing, bouncing off the 200 EMA almost exactly as it did last year. Not to mention, the shape of the charts are looking near-identical, suggesting that should the fractal play out in full, BTC will soon plunge by over 20% towards the $6,000s once again. Will Bulls Step In?  Despite these fears, there are some holding onto the belief that Bitcoin bulls will step in, especially as the halving approaches. Murad Mahmudov, CIO of Bitcoin fund Adaptive Capital, recently observed on Twitter that there is nearly no way BTC is falling much further than it already has, because “as crazy as it sounds, the -53 percent drop from $13,888 to $6,410 wasn’t a full out bitcoin bear market, but rather, unironically just mid-bull cycle correction.” Also, the Lucid SAR indicator, just printed a bullish signal on a medium-term basis; the indicator printed its first buy signal since March 2019, which was prior to a 330% rally that brought BTC above $10,000 and crypto assets dozens of percent higher. Featured Image from Shutterstock The post appeared first on NewsBTC. from Cryptocracken Tumblr https://ift.tt/38GTUMW via IFTTT

[michaelbennettcrypto]

This Eerie Fractal Shows Why Bitcoin’s Price Could Soon Crash By 20%

Over the past week, Bitcoin (BTC) has started to show signs of weakness after a 40% uptrend in a month. Since establishing a $9,200 multi-month around seven days ago, the price of the leading digital asset has plummeted by 11% to $8,200, where it trades as of the time of writing this. Although the price drop has seemingly found a local bottom, with the selling pressure abating, an eerie fractal proposed by a top Bitcoin analyst says it’s only a matter of time before BTC falls dozens of percent from here. Ouch. Bitcoin Could Soon Plunge Dozens of Percent Over the past few weeks, Bitcoin has broken out from key downtrends, rallying by dozens of percent since the $6,400 bottom registered in December of last year. Although this has been decisively bullish price action, countless analysts have noted that the breakout we are seeing is eerily reminiscent of the infamous “China Pump” in October 2019, when President Xi Jinping’s endorsement of blockchain sent Bitcoin 40% higher. 40% higher in a day. Similarities were seen in a number of indicators, in the directionality of the move, and how the price action was formed. And according to a recent analysis by Cold Blooded Shiller — a full-time crypto trader — the similarities go even further than that, suggesting that BTC may tumble by dozens of percent from here. Night night, forever. pic.twitter.com/reS29pZEtq — Cold Blooded Shiller (@ColdBloodShill) January 25, 2020 He noted in the tweet above that when Bitcoin started to unwind after the China pump of yesteryear, the price hastily bounced off the 200-day exponential moving average (EMA) then was rejected from a key support/”supply” level, to only plunge through the same moving average. This ping-ponging in the price of BTC last year preceded a strong crash from $8,700 to $6,400 in a few weeks’ time, marking a drop of 27%. This is relevant because Bitcoin has done the exact same thing, bouncing off the 200 EMA almost exactly as it did last year. Not to mention, the shape of the charts are looking near-identical, suggesting that should the fractal play out in full, BTC will soon plunge by over 20% towards the $6,000s once again. Will Bulls Step In?  Despite these fears, there are some holding onto the belief that Bitcoin bulls will step in, especially as the halving approaches. Murad Mahmudov, CIO of Bitcoin fund Adaptive Capital, recently observed on Twitter that there is nearly no way BTC is falling much further than it already has, because “as crazy as it sounds, the -53 percent drop from $13,888 to $6,410 wasn’t a full out bitcoin bear market, but rather, unironically just mid-bull cycle correction.” Also, the Lucid SAR indicator, just printed a bullish signal on a medium-term basis; the indicator printed its first buy signal since March 2019, which was prior to a 330% rally that brought BTC above $10,000 and crypto assets dozens of percent higher. Featured Image from Shutterstock The post appeared first on NewsBTC. from Cryptocracken WP https://ift.tt/38GTUMW via IFTTT

[brettzjacksonblog]

This Eerie Fractal Shows Why Bitcoin’s Price Could Soon Crash By 20%

Over the past week, Bitcoin (BTC) has started to show signs of weakness after a 40% uptrend in a month. Since establishing a $9,200 multi-month around seven days ago, the price of the leading digital asset has plummeted by 11% to $8,200, where it trades as of the time of writing this. Although the price drop has seemingly found a local bottom, with the selling pressure abating, an eerie fractal proposed by a top Bitcoin analyst says it’s only a matter of time before BTC falls dozens of percent from here. Ouch. Bitcoin Could Soon Plunge Dozens of Percent Over the past few weeks, Bitcoin has broken out from key downtrends, rallying by dozens of percent since the $6,400 bottom registered in December of last year. Although this has been decisively bullish price action, countless analysts have noted that the breakout we are seeing is eerily reminiscent of the infamous “China Pump” in October 2019, when President Xi Jinping’s endorsement of blockchain sent Bitcoin 40% higher. 40% higher in a day. Similarities were seen in a number of indicators, in the directionality of the move, and how the price action was formed. And according to a recent analysis by Cold Blooded Shiller — a full-time crypto trader — the similarities go even further than that, suggesting that BTC may tumble by dozens of percent from here. Night night, forever. pic.twitter.com/reS29pZEtq — Cold Blooded Shiller (@ColdBloodShill) January 25, 2020 He noted in the tweet above that when Bitcoin started to unwind after the China pump of yesteryear, the price hastily bounced off the 200-day exponential moving average (EMA) then was rejected from a key support/”supply” level, to only plunge through the same moving average. This ping-ponging in the price of BTC last year preceded a strong crash from $8,700 to $6,400 in a few weeks’ time, marking a drop of 27%. This is relevant because Bitcoin has done the exact same thing, bouncing off the 200 EMA almost exactly as it did last year. Not to mention, the shape of the charts are looking near-identical, suggesting that should the fractal play out in full, BTC will soon plunge by over 20% towards the $6,000s once again. Will Bulls Step In?  Despite these fears, there are some holding onto the belief that Bitcoin bulls will step in, especially as the halving approaches. Murad Mahmudov, CIO of Bitcoin fund Adaptive Capital, recently observed on Twitter that there is nearly no way BTC is falling much further than it already has, because “as crazy as it sounds, the -53 percent drop from $13,888 to $6,410 wasn’t a full out bitcoin bear market, but rather, unironically just mid-bull cycle correction.” Also, the Lucid SAR indicator, just printed a bullish signal on a medium-term basis; the indicator printed its first buy signal since March 2019, which was prior to a 330% rally that brought BTC above $10,000 and crypto assets dozens of percent higher. Featured Image from Shutterstock The post appeared first on NewsBTC. from CryptoCracken SMFeed https://ift.tt/38GTUMW via IFTTT

[signutai]

egopoiesis replied to your post: Anyway if you’ve thrown your support behind the...

I think the worst thing about that situation is that the platform reviewing it didn’t even harshly criticize it. I thought it was a really fair and gentle review of something that could/should have been subject to MUCH harsher commentary. Just because something was technically challenging to make or was a gift doesn’t mean it’s not… messed up ?

Exactly this, I think even some of the harsher criticism I saw came about because the people involved in the sim becoming a thing were literally just not listening to extremely valid concerns and trying to excuse the content and there was frustration involved, and even then it wasn’t nearly the kind of language I would have likely used in that situation. Not to say that handling it any more harshly would have been objectively right, but it could have been exponential degrees worse than a couple of people getting grumpy, some legitimate concerns and criticism voiced unkindly, and everyone else just taking the piss. Like, it being a gift for someone stopped being a relevant defense when it was released for everyone to play--when you put something out into the world, you’re going to get a reaction, and some things just simply warrant stronger reactions than others, frankly. There’s absolutely a place for exploring dark concepts in fiction, but imo romanticization is its own insidious brand of endorsement, in a way, and some things should just not ever be put in an unironically positive light. I also find it a little amusing how many people who are hopping on the train defending it are also the types who are becoming vocally grouchy about harmless shit like companion reacts. ��I can excuse a dating sim where you murder a slave woman to get a slaver’s dick, but I draw the line at Preston Reacts To Sole Being Pregnant.”

[cryptoveins]

This Eerie Fractal Shows Why Bitcoin’s Price Could Soon Crash By 20%

Over the past week, Bitcoin (BTC) has started to show signs of weakness after a 40% uptrend in a month. Since establishing a $9,200 multi-month around seven days ago, the price of the leading digital asset has plummeted by 11% to $8,200, where it trades as of the time of writing this. Although the price drop has seemingly found a local bottom, with the selling pressure abating, an eerie fractal proposed by a top Bitcoin analyst says it’s only a matter of time before BTC falls dozens of percent from here. Ouch. Bitcoin Could Soon Plunge Dozens of Percent Over the past few weeks, Bitcoin has broken out from key downtrends, rallying by dozens of percent since the $6,400 bottom registered in December of last year. Although this has been decisively bullish price action, countless analysts have noted that the breakout we are seeing is eerily reminiscent of the infamous “China Pump” in October 2019, when President Xi Jinping’s endorsement of blockchain sent Bitcoin 40% higher. 40% higher in a day. Similarities were seen in a number of indicators, in the directionality of the move, and how the price action was formed. And according to a recent analysis by Cold Blooded Shiller — a full-time crypto trader — the similarities go even further than that, suggesting that BTC may tumble by dozens of percent from here.

Night night, forever. pic.twitter.com/reS29pZEtq — Cold Blooded Shiller (@ColdBloodShill) January 25, 2020

He noted in the tweet above that when Bitcoin started to unwind after the China pump of yesteryear, the price hastily bounced off the 200-day exponential moving average (EMA) then was rejected from a key support/”supply” level, to only plunge through the same moving average. This ping-ponging in the price of BTC last year preceded a strong crash from $8,700 to $6,400 in a few weeks’ time, marking a drop of 27%. This is relevant because Bitcoin has done the exact same thing, bouncing off the 200 EMA almost exactly as it did last year. Not to mention, the shape of the charts are looking near-identical, suggesting that should the fractal play out in full, BTC will soon plunge by over 20% towards the $6,000s once again. Will Bulls Step In?  Despite these fears, there are some holding onto the belief that Bitcoin bulls will step in, especially as the halving approaches. Murad Mahmudov, CIO of Bitcoin fund Adaptive Capital, recently observed on Twitter that there is nearly no way BTC is falling much further than it already has, because “as crazy as it sounds, the -53 percent drop from $13,888 to $6,410 wasn’t a full out bitcoin bear market, but rather, unironically just mid-bull cycle correction.” Also, the Lucid SAR indicator, just printed a bullish signal on a medium-term basis; the indicator printed its first buy signal since March 2019, which was prior to a 330% rally that brought BTC above $10,000 and crypto assets dozens of percent higher. Featured Image from Shutterstock This Eerie Fractal Shows Why Bitcoin’s Price Could Soon Crash By 20% was last modified: January 25th, 2020 by Nick Chong The post appeared first on NewsBTC.

https://cryptoveins.com/this-eerie-fractal-shows-why-bitcoins-price-could-soon-crash-by-20/

[brentrogers]

Why Celebrity Narratives Can Be Dangerous for Your Mental Health

Everyone loves a good story. People expectantly gather around a story-teller at a party, listening intently to the narrative they weave. A really good story can even make a person’s day.

Entire companies have been built by the telling of a good story. Just look at TED talks, which gained their power and following from storytelling.

Are stories and personal narratives always a change agent for good? Or can they also be used for less altruistic purposes? And what happens when you add the multiplying power of celebrity and influencers into the mix of a good narrative?

Humans tend to be a trusting bunch. When someone tells us a story, most people’s default is to believe it to be true, especially if it’s personal. Best friend had an especially awful date? Why would they embellish that? And even if a story is embellished a bit, rarely are there any potential harmful consequences to the listener.

All of that changes when the storyteller is a celebrity. And the stories they are telling are about their health or mental health.

Science vs. a Good Story Told by a Celebrity

Celebrity narratives are the reason we have anti-vaxxers today — people who believe it is harmful to have their children vaccinated (at all, or at the standard vaccination schedule). These anti-vaccine stances aren’t based on any scientific studies (unless they point to the single, since-retracted study), but rather on good story telling by celebrities like Jenny McCarthy, Bill Maher, Alicia Silverstone, Rob Schneider, and Jessica Biel. Celebrities like them tell an anti-vaccine story based on their personal beliefs or third-hand information — never the scientific research.

It doesn’t end just with bad health advice. The power of the celebrity and influencer narrative also has fueled a whole new wellness industry of new snake oil products and services. Stuff that has zero scientific support for its use, but people feel good using it because it’s endorsed by so-and-so.

Actress Gwyneth Paltrow decided to get into the women’s wellness industry back in 2010 with her founding of her company, Goop. Since that time, it has promoted an endless stream of woo products meant to appeal to women who aspire to be like Gwyneth. Goop’s outrageous health claims on its website got so bad that it was forced to settle a lawsuit in 2018 with 10 state prosecutors. The settlement resulted in a $145,000 fine:

According to Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen, the company claimed that its Jade and Rose Quartz eggs, after inserted into the vagina, “could balance hormones, regulate menstrual cycles, prevent uterine prolapse, and increase bladder control. Goop advertised that the Inner Judge Flower Essence Blend, a blend of essential oils meant to be taken orally or added to bathwater, could help prevent depression.”

Make no mistake about it — tens of thousands of people believed (and maybe still do) Paltrow and her company’s claim that some bathwater salts could actually help prevent depression.

Yet that hasn’t stopped companies from associating themselves with the snake oil that Goop shills. Netflix announced a new series unironically called “The Goop Lab” for 2020 — associating the scientific “lab” with the clearly unscientific focus of Goop.

The Dark Side of Celebrity Narratives

As much as we love a good narrative, we also love it when a celebrity or influencer endorses the story, or expands upon it in a new way. When a celebrity tells us the story, it feels all that more special. After all, companies hire such folks to promote their products because it’s effective.

But a good story can have a dark side too. Stories will nearly always trump scientific data, because data are boring while stories are engaging. Worse yet, a good anecdote appears to interfere with many people’s ability to engage in scientific reasoning (Rodriguez et al., 2016).

Research has also indicated that the more often a person is exposed to misinformation or “fake news,” the more likely they were to believe in the accuracy of the fake news headline (Pennycook et al., 2018). In short, people’s reasoning skills can be worn down by repetition. If you say something often enough — even if untrue — people will begin to believe it.

This is potentially extremely dangerous when it comes to health and mental health information. The belief that more truthful information can overcome false information is no longer true, as information filter bubbles are not easily popped. When a celebrity or influencer simply keeps saying the same false information, people will inevitably not only listen, but also believe.

A wellness guru is rarely an expert in anything. What worked for them may or may not work for you. But because of the halo surrounding their influence, you may believe it will work for you if they keep telling you it will — regardless of what the scientific evidence says.

  References

Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(12), 1865–1880. https://ift.tt/2TrSrW6

Rodriguez, F., Rebecca E. Rhodes, Kevin F. Miller & Priti Shah. (2016). Examining the influence of anecdotal stories and the interplay of individual differences on reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 22(3), 274-296. https://ift.tt/3635z6F

Why Celebrity Narratives Can Be Dangerous for Your Mental Health syndicated from