SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On April 6, William Shatner had a Twitter spat with noted physician Dr. David H. Gorski, founder of Science-Based Medicine, a blog which takes a sceptical and scientific look at controversial medical claims. A few days earlier Shatner made pleas to support Autism Speaks, a controversial group which has has been criticised for an approach which stigmatises autism, and for only recently changing its position from suggesting a link between vaccines and autism to accepting the overwhelming science that such a link does not exist (and they still don't seem to have unequivocally rejected anti-vaccine views). Many people attempted to call Shatner out on this, including Dr. Gorski, and Shatner responded by doubling down and responding with hit pieces on Dr. Gorski from dubious pseudoscience sites critical of him, such as TruthWiki, Newstarget, and NaturalNews. Slate has an article about the incident:
With that, millions of followers were treated to a hit piece about Gorski hosted by TruthWiki. It's hard to overstate the unreliability of TruthWiki, a haphazard collection of conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific nonsense riddled with typos and bizarre assertions. The exercise section, for instance, includes only two entries: "Natural Help for Diabetes" and "Deepak Chopra's Eye Exercises."
When Science-Based Medicine objected to Shatner's tweet, he posted another set of links discrediting Gorski, this time to the websites Newstarget (motto: "Obliterating Your Safe Spaces With Truth Bombs") and NaturalNews, which is run by Mike Adams, aka "the Health Ranger"—who also founded TruthWiki.
"All on Google," he added after them, as if that certified their authenticity.
NaturalNews is like TruthWiki but without the veneer of reliability: It's a cesspool of pseudo-scientific insanity seasoned generously with political vitriol and outlandish conspiracy theories. That's not biased journalism—it's the only way to report accurately on the site.
[...]Shatner is a celebrity, which means that he has outsized influence. That he would use his platform to lend credibility to such sites, spreading them to 2.5 million followers, could have terrible consequences. Shatner has made his support of vaccination very clear, but NaturalNews has tons of "articles" demonizing vaccinations—an example is a video titled "Vaccine Cannibalism Exposed." But there's an upside: The real-time tweeting of his thought process provides a helpful window into the practices of everyday intelligent people trying to figure out the truth. They Google, they find a few articles that confirm their biases, and they're done. No matter that the articles are on websites that spread virulent misinformation. What look like dead giveaways of quackery for some go completely unnoticed. This is instructive, even if it's frustrating.
It's unfortunate that Shatner is now on the receiving end of a lot of outrage because of a few misinformed tweets. At the same time, celebrities wield tremendous power, and to be cliché about it, that comes with some responsibility. I can only hope this will serve as a lesson to him and to others about the importance of applying information literacy before tweeting. Ideally, he would have perhaps recognized his misstep and deleted the problematic tweets instead of doubling down, but human pride is a powerful thing.
As for the rest of us, well, let's just say that a part of information literacy is realizing that just because someone is famous doesn't mean they have it.
Dr. Gorski himself (writing under the pseudonym Orac) has written of the affair from his perspective.
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Saturday April 08 2017, @08:39PM (14 children)
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @08:44PM (10 children)
He's a economist and actor. Not scientist. And well that shows when he tries to be one without doing the homework.. ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @09:19PM (9 children)
And he's an 80+ year old man with his own opinion. I'm not going to fault him for supporting positions I may disagree with. I'm surprised that at that age he still wants to put up with mass outrage when a position may currently constitute wrong-think.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @09:31PM
It may stem from the same reason. He didn't think it through.
(Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Saturday April 08 2017, @10:24PM
Trolling can be fun, quick and not terrible exhausting when you must fill your large amount of spare time with something.
Just ask ethanol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @10:30PM (1 child)
His "opinions" just happen to be copy pasta from a bunch of crank websites. Yeah, a real deep thinking guy there. But I guess it's all 50-50, right? He's got an opinion, you've got an opinion. The truth is exactly in the middle.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @10:56PM
>His "opinions" just happen to be copy pasta from a bunch of crank websites.
Just like your average Climate Change SJW!
(Score: 3, Disagree) by requerdanos on Saturday April 08 2017, @11:11PM (4 children)
And he's an 80+ year old man with his own opinion. I'm not going to fault him for supporting positions I may disagree with.
Well, thing is, opinion isn't a valid reference nor defense here, and it's good to keep in mind that epidemics of almost-eradicated diseases and sick/dead kids arise from the dangerous anti-vaccine crusaders' nonsense.
Kind of when they ask me at the wings place whether I want "traditional" or "boneless" wings and I explain to them that it is not "tradition" that causes a particular part of the chicken to be the wing. It's because when you kill a chicken and cut it up, lo and behold, that part is the wing.
Opinion and tradition do not affect nomenclature or other aspects of reality in the way that you, Shatner, and the wings place may believe.
This is why it is important that decisions be "science based". That's kind of a shorthand for "probably not completely erroneous" or "not just some idiot's opinion." Those who disagree with or oppose this observation may have opinions, sure, but probably not valid ones.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @02:34AM (3 children)
Kind of when they ask me at the wings place whether I want "traditional" or "boneless" wings and I explain to them that it is not "tradition" that causes a particular part of the chicken to be the wing. It's because when you kill a chicken and cut it up, lo and behold, that part is the wing.
And they knowingly nod their heads at the old man who is too much of a dictionary pedant to realize that "traditional" refers to the preparation of the meat, not the origin of it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by requerdanos on Sunday April 09 2017, @02:06PM (2 children)
And they knowingly nod their heads at the old man who is too much of a dictionary pedant to realize that "traditional" refers to the preparation of the meat, not the origin of it.
Yes, except that "boneless wings" [wisegeek.com] are chicken nuggets from the breast or rib of the chicken. You see, the restaurant industry [npr.org] (especially in the U.S.) uses the words "traditional" and "boneless" to refer to the origin of the meat, not its preparation. Saying that ribs and breasts are not wings is simply recognizing objective reality, and hardly pedantry.
This is another example of what I was talking about above: Your opinion stated here, which contradicts facts, doesn't shape reality any more than those mentioned above do, yet you state it in a manner that seems fairly confident. A vast swath of mankind is affected by this problem--I don't think anyone is totally exempt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @05:26PM (1 child)
. You see, the restaurant industry (especially in the U.S.) uses the words "traditional" and "boneless" to refer to the origin of the meat, not its preparation.
And buffalo wings aren't made out of buffaloes either.
Big freaking deal.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 11 2017, @04:50AM
Buffalo wings have nothing to do with bison. They're named after the city of Buffalo, New York, where they were invented in 1964.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @09:14PM (1 child)
Maybe we need Patrick Stewart to help out?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @09:22PM
The blind tells the deaf where to go? ;)
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday April 09 2017, @06:20PM
I didn't. Isaac Asimov heavily criticized the original Trek because of all the bad science. Paramount later hired him as a science advisor on the Star Trek movie.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @08:41PM (15 children)
Autism Speaks can be considered as site that condones oppression and extinction of people that have Asperger or Autism. They also perpetuate misrepresentation of the group. One group with interests in the organization is parents that just want to cure people of autism even if it calls for exorcism and the patient gets traumatized for life.
Oh, did I forget the self interest of obtaining funds..
As for being famous. A lot of people are famous but when the amount of attention to your person is higher than the mental capability it will eventually show. Being famous carries responsibilities, but they just aren't capable of exactly that. People are also fallible regardless and with constant scrutiny, people will eventually slipup.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @09:00PM (14 children)
A lot of people are famous but when the amount of attention to your person is higher than the mental capability it will eventually show.
Kanye and the Kardashians are prime examples.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @09:17PM
I think that's a special case. It even says something about the fans too.. ;)
It's almost pathetic how people assume that because someone can act, sing, look pretty, etc. That they have any mental capability that counts.
Another more sneaky practice is to label someone a professor. But forgetting to tell what they are a professor in.
Or assume that knowledge that has been acquired outside the educational-industrial-complex doesn't amount to anything.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday April 08 2017, @10:26PM (5 children)
Sorry... who?
Did I fail to pay attention to something significant?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @10:33PM (4 children)
Kanye is/was going to run for POTUS 2020. Kardashians is a new earthquake fault running through Hollywood, it's crack is deeper than the Grand canyon.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday April 08 2017, @10:40PM (1 child)
Thanks. I haven't lost anything of importance then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @01:16AM
Idiocracy was a documentary..
(Score: 5, Insightful) by butthurt on Sunday April 09 2017, @05:34AM (1 child)
> Kanye is/was going to run for POTUS 2020.
If Mr. Shatner is really treating his readers on Twitter to "conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific nonsense riddled with typos and bizarre assertions" it may be a sign that he, too, has his eyes on the presidency.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday April 13 2017, @11:49AM
(but probably not, for he is Canadian)
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @10:40PM (4 children)
A lot of people are famous but when the amount of attention to your person is higher than the mental capability it will eventually show.
Kanye and the Kardashians are prime examples.
And yet, as the current POTUS has demonstrated, with enough celebrity you can get a ~35% of the population to support you without question.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @05:22PM (3 children)
What the current POTUS is a good example at is that when the choice is between a crook and a businessman people will choose the lesser evil. Adding to the fuel is that the crook supporters direct their militia to harass the parts of the population that contribute a lot in terms of hard cash and a lot of other tangible societal contributions.
Media and a lot of others seems to have gigantic blind spots both in input and mental capability to analyze what's going on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @05:30PM
Nah, the current potus is a good example of how a con-man can take advantage of Cardinal Richelieu's most famous quotation. The Cardinal was so correct in his observation that not only did you buy it, you still desperately cling to it so as not to accept culpability for your complete and utter failure to do your civic duty.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mcgrew on Sunday April 09 2017, @06:28PM (1 child)
Except that the "businessman" WAS a proven crook, as he settled a fraud case against him. Nobody ever proved Clinton was a crook, fools simply believed the real crook's vacuous lies.
The President is also a proven racist, as he was found guilty, twice, of housing discrimination based on race. THAT is what got Trump elected--every racist, bigot, and nationalist showed up at the polls to vote for him. Then there was Clinton's poor campaign, Russia, and a lot of other variables (including the electors; Clinton won the popular vote).
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @09:59PM
You really are separate from reality. The truth is, more minorities and women voted for Trump than most recent republican presidential candidates have had. Remember also, exactly zero presidential races in the US have been decided by popular vote. The popular vote is only a thing because the media makes it a thing. With Jill Steins silly "recount", they discovered there were even more voters for Trump than previously counted anyway and eve *gasp* voter fraud! Especially in areas like Detroit with counties reporting more votes for Clinton than they had voters. Keep thinking like you do though. Trump will get elected to a second term as long as people like you keep bleating your spittle laced rants.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @10:56PM (1 child)
Wait! What do Chuck Norris and Ted Nugent say about vaccines and autism? Enquiring Minds want to know!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @01:34AM
Ted Nugent seems to be silent on the matter, but here you go [scienceblogs.com].
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @09:11PM (2 children)
"and for only recently changing its position from suggesting a link between vaccines and autism to accepting the overwhelming science that such a link does not exist (and they still don't seem to have unequivocally rejected anti-vaccine views)."
people's kids are getting brain damaged all over the country from vaccines you stupid fucking whore.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @09:16PM
people's kids are getting brain damaged all over the country from vaccines you stupid fucking whore.
Is that what happened to you, sweet cheeks?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @07:35AM
people's kids are getting brain damaged all over the country from vaccines you stupid fucking whore.
You should tell their parents that, unlike footballs, it's wrong to apply vaccines by bashing the head with them and they should stop.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wisnoskij on Saturday April 08 2017, @09:54PM (3 children)
Why refute the allegations when you can just attack someones[sites] character.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday April 08 2017, @11:49PM
Maybe they just needed a more official source. [hrsa.gov]
Yes, that is a thing, it exists.
(Score: 3, Informative) by stormwyrm on Sunday April 09 2017, @04:42AM
The link to Dr. Gorski’s profile [sciencebasedmedicine.org] on Science-Based Medicine has a pretty good refutation of most of the allegations made by the sites Shatner linked to. See the section on “A note for potential patients Googling for information about Dr. Gorski”:
Dr. Gorski has himself responded to these allegations at length [sciencebasedmedicine.org]. Many of the statements made against him are outright libelous [skepticalraptor.com].
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @01:17PM
The point isn’t so much about the content of the articles which Mr. Shatner linked to in themselves (which indeed contain easily refuted misinformation and outright lies about Dr. Gorski [sciencebasedmedicine.org]), but rather the sites themselves, and what effect Mr. Shatner’s linking to them has. Those sites are, as Dr. Gorski so colourfully calls them, wretched hives of scum and quackery [scienceblogs.com], and by linking to them Mr. Shatner sends the implicit message that he endorses them as reliable sources of information. From the article:
As Alan Levinovitz put it [twitter.com]:
If some other celebrity (not Shatner, as I think he’s Jewish and as such I doubt he’d make such a mistake), linked to an article on, say, Stormfront on Twitter, wouldn’t that be sending the message that they implicitly supported the racism and bigotry that the site represents?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @10:48PM (2 children)
This isn't all that surprising. The guy literally had a tv show called Shit My Dad Says. [imdb.com] There is a rule of thumb in hollywood - actors on television are hired to play themselves, actors in movies are hired to play a character. Shatner's only box-office successes were movie-length episodes of a tv show. Source: Married a hollywood casting director who actually cast Shatner in a movie nobody has ever seen.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by blackhawk on Sunday April 09 2017, @07:30PM (1 child)
Except, the truth seems to be the opposite of what you are claiming today. I see a lot more good quality actors taking on character roles on television these days. By contrast, the Hollywood actors are just being dropped into the same old roles in remakes of old movies or sequels of popular crap. I can only think of a few film actors who actually develop a new character for each role, as opposed to simply playing themselves - because the money men run their finger down the list and decided which actor had the best ROI for that particular style of film.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @01:41AM
Yeah, yeah, yeah pay tv has produced a few showcases for big screen talent to move to the small screen, but they are still the rare exception not the rule.
But nearly everything that airs on the big5 networks during primetime is still an example of actors playing themselves.
And your criticism of sequels is off. Just because somebody like hugh jackman keeps playing wolverine in x-men movies does not mean jackman is anything like the Logan character in real life. Playing the same character is not the same as playing yourself.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @11:03PM (3 children)
(((William Shatner))) should listen to the scientists and follow what they say. What he is promoting might be part of a bigger puzzle that is not totally unknown to us, which is total control of the masses through coordinated attacks. People need to open their eyes and see where the money trail goes.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday April 08 2017, @11:43PM
Not everything is economics. When people are desperate, they'll believe anyone who promises to help them, even a known thief...even one known to specialize in preying on the helpless.
Nobody has a solution to autism, so people look for help to frauds and look for someone to blame, even though that wouldn't do any good even if it were to be correctly allocated.
That said, this area is ripe for economic scams, but those are a bit dangerously subject to prosecution by complainants who are already looking for someone to blame. (E-mail scams, though, might be quite big in this area, but I probably wouldn't have heard of them.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @12:42AM (1 child)
Spare us the antisemitism. (For those who don’t know, the tripled parentheses are used by antisemites to set off the names of Jewish people.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @01:36AM
You forgot to put the echos around (((antisemites))).
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Sunday April 09 2017, @12:45AM
The doctor must be a science fiction fan, because 'Orac' was the computer with an attitude from "Blake's 7" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake's_7 [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Lagg on Sunday April 09 2017, @12:48AM (1 child)
I'm convinced twitter can only lead to ruined lives in non-read-only mode. I was horrified when my 140 characters were hijacked by cultists and moreso when replies would be uncomfortable and wink-wink nudge-nudgey. It's moot now, but you think maybe he'd have researched properly if he had a room for a citation or twitter was designed in such a way that it wasn't a stream of consciousness antenna?
It seems like if there's one thing this piece of shit is good for it's getting people to make posts where ambiguity scales with level of complex thought attempted. Over and over again. Celebrities and attention whores make a post they regret. Then are essentially stuck because they probably have 10000 archives watching them. Making the deletion a good way of getting oneself into deeper shit.
Of course. Sometimes it's also a really great news source. For better or worse.
Still though. If twitter didn't exist I think the shat just wouldn't have bothered posting something like that on a blog and it would have been a passing thought based on innocent ignorance. Because blogs require liek a paragraph and that's some college shit right thar. I'm- I mean taxes are too goddamn high to worry about this!
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday April 09 2017, @05:32PM
Posting about subjective matters in a environment that attracts more attention whores than intelligence is indeed a recipe for misery. Hopefully people see the light and jump ship from the cesspools like facebook, twitter, and anything else I might have missed..
(with the hope that they won't jump ship until they got enlightened)
As soon as things starts to be about persons and form or unsourced claims = warning flag.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Dunbal on Sunday April 09 2017, @12:48AM (5 children)
Someone who listens to a fool who repeats claims he read on twitter as fact is no less of a fool. The world is full of idiots. It always will be. There's no point in wasting time in educated those who don't want to be educated. And there's no point complaining about how modern communication has given them a voice. The smart person just tunes them out. William Shatner to me is nothing more than a source of entertainment as an actor. I really don't expect him to teach me science, any more than I expect biochemistry textbooks to be stupendous fun and highly entertaining.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @04:16AM (4 children)
> Someone who listens to a fool who repeats claims he read on twitter as fact is no less of a fool.
Versus listening to a fool who repeats claims he read on breitbart and infowars?
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Sunday April 09 2017, @03:09PM (1 child)
So you're equating science and politics?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @05:35PM
I'm equating idiocy with idiocy.
If you think science and politics don't intersect then you are hopelessly ignorant.
Big Tobacco was all about a political fight over the science.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @05:34PM (1 child)
Versus listening to a fool who repeats what CNN etc says.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @05:37PM
Ah yes, all speakers are equally reliable, amirite?
The excuse of fascists everywhere.
Who needs journalistic standards when we can have the truth delivered to us straight from the horse's own mouth?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @02:45AM
...newest member of the U.S. Supreme Court.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @08:50AM (1 child)
In my opinion something is helping to propagate the spread of misinformation is the decision from mainstream sources to present only the prevalent view and label everything to the contrary as completely and unequivocally false. The reality is of course much more nuanced and there is a variety of evidence supporting even very outlandish claims. The point is instead of presenting this evidence and explaining why it may not be what it seems (or why it's less compelling than alternative views), mainstream sources pretend it does not exist and even go so far as to engage in ad hominem attacks against any who didn't immediately disregard such information - even when it can be quite compelling when presented in a vacuum. That presentation in a vacuum is of course disingenuous and misleading, yet it's exactly what we do with the prevalent and widely accepted views.
Anyhow, the point of this is that when you present this lopsided view of things and people find evidence that is seemingly omitted entirely, they can perceive such omissions as evidence of conspiracy, malfeasance, or simple insecurity in their espoused views.
I'm not suggesting we do what some organizations have done whereby you have an equal number of e.g. scientists who go agains the climate change consensus view and an equal number in favor of it, but rather there ought be some explanation for *why* the majority believe the way they do and why the minority feel the way they do - without judgement or prejudice. The evidence should speak for itself. I think this is the reason that "fake news" was one of the biggest PR backfires in recent history. It seems like that media reporting on issues has started to borrow from political rhetoric in that if they don't act like they are 100% certain beyond any doubt correct on a topic, that it will be seen as weakness. And that might be true, but being seen as 100% certain on anything is also a great way to be seen as fake.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @05:48PM
but rather there ought be some explanation for *why* the majority believe the way they do and why the minority feel the way they do - without judgement or prejudice.
Ah, you want them to report the controversy! Forget reporting the facts, what matters is the existence of disagreement. All positions are equally valid.
And that might be true, but being seen as 100% certain on anything is also a great way to be seen as fake.
Yes, 99.9% of doctors believe smoking is bad for your health, so it is really important to cover why that 0.1% think otherwise. We must constantly spin our wheels relitigating the same debates over and over again because somewhere, someone, isn't convinced.