So I just watched 60 minutes, an Australian TV show, which exposed the lies by self-made wellness guru Belle Gibson.

I think that it is a real issue that there are no regulatory bodies which impose certain standards of behaviour online. On one hand the freedom to share information is something that we cherish. On the other hand however, people can just make up anything they like, in order to gain popularity and make money. So I do believe that certain standards are needed. I did write about this issue recently (here) and before (here).

So what do you think? How would you like to see accountability work in the raw food community?


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2015 01:17PM by rawgosia.

rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So I just watched 60 minutes, an Australian TV
> show, which exposed the lies by self-made wellness
> guru Belle Gibson.


Belle Gibson was ripped to shreds here -

[www.rawfoodsupport.com]


> I think that it is a real issue that there are no
> regulatory bodies which impose certain standards
> of behaviour online.


You're freaking me out

> On one hand the freedom to
> share information is something that we cherish. On
> the other hand however, people can just make up
> anything they like, in order to gain popularity
> and make money. So I do believe that certain
> standards are needed.


And who exactly would set those standards?

Do you mean 'thought police' - someone or some body that would monitor our words?


> So what do you think?


I believe there are already laws addressing fraud. But you're talking about making a law against lying.

> How would you like to see
> accountability work in the raw food community?

"Accountability" - you mean punishment!

Let nature take it's course, let it play out. What goes around comes around, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If someone lies, is deceitful, etc., truth will out and eventually their reputation will be ruined.

The "Raw Food Community" is already expert at tearing down and eating their own through cult of personality, gossip, celebrity worship. Now we want to give them some kind authority, power!

And I guess someone would chose those elite - a popularity contest - who get to make and enforce the rules (I mean 'standards').

Laws 'standards' against lying. I guess that's next

Authoritarianism.

We have to put a camera inside their bellies to see what they are saying they are eating.

Modern information systems allow for bad people to do its doings. Maybe they are secondary effects.

Example:

[www.dailymail.co.uk]

Thanks, Panchito! I had heard about that unfortunately incident, but that's the first time I read it - and I like the Daily Mail as an alternative news and opinion source.

Yes, it's the PC, thought-police (and in this case the feminists) run amuk. Everything everyone says (especially on Facebook, Twitter) is already repeated, spun, twisted and dissected for 'intent', so I don't think we need any more laws governing online behavior.

Although, Panchito - I'm not exactly sure what you were tryinig to say; could you explain it more, please. I'm not sure if you agree with me that everyone is already rooted out, exposed, taken to task and shamed/punished so we don't need a body to come up with actual laws for such.

rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I think that it is a real issue that there are no
> regulatory bodies which impose certain standards
> of behaviour online.


[www.youtube.com]

Lois Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> everyone is already rooted out, exposed, taken to
> task and shamed/punished so we don't need a body
> to come up with actual laws for such.


Edit - We don't need a Raw Food Community GOVERNMENT body to monitor and make actual laws controlling our 'online behavior'.

The last thing we need are more "regulatory bodies" to control us. People need to be less gullible. I look at these guru figures that people fall for and I say, "Really? You're in your 40s and you can't see that this is a completely phony snake-oil salesperson?" Regulatory bodies are used to take away what little freedoms we have. I'm not willing to sacrifice that because some adults aren't grown-up enough to look out for themselves.

Panchito, great example. I would say that we do observe lynch mobs in the raw food community at times too.

People should be more discerning. That would be nice. The reality is however that peopple tend to be gullible. What can be done about this?

We do not need police. We do need more awareness. How do we achieve that?

Talking about these issues is a step in the opposite direction of ignoring it.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

An interesting comment from the article posted by Panchito:

"Social Media has turned us all into the baying masses of the medieval witch hunts, with no mediators of our hysterical views, and with the loudest, most ignorant and angry up at the front with their burning tweeting torches."

It seems to me that in the case of both Belle Gibson and Sir Tim Hunt, people have made the mistake of trusting online information, and did this on a large scale. Once you have a mob of followers, or a lynch mob, the next person who joins it does not seem to be making an effort of checking the facts...


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

I agree,

I watched her interview too. She seems mentally ill (munchausen's perhaps)?

Personally, I believe it is up to the individual to fact check, research alternate views and make up their own mind. No one should just blindly follow anyones advice (no matter how much of a "guru" they promote themselves as). Anyone who, say, gives up their chemo and radiation therapy (not that I agree with either) because they read a book is an idiot. Someone who reads something should do research, look into all sides and various viewpoints so they are able to make a *truly* informed decision.

As for gurus, I think if they want to be taken seriously, it is up to them to provide proof and evidence supporting what they say. If you're saying you cured cancer with healthy eating, share some of your medical records and medically documented progress to PROVE your legitimacy.

Good points Kiwibird. I think that perhaps sometimes we are being too afraid to appear inpolite if we ask for the evidence? As an example, because Belle looks like a nice girl, it would be inpolite to ask, did she really have cancer and can she please show us the medical records to prove them? I think it should be OK to ask. It should be encouraged to ask. And those who are asked should act professionally, and respond to such requests, and do so in a nice manner, rather than getting offended or becoming evasive for example.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It seems to me that in the case of both Belle
> Gibson and Sir Tim Hunt, people have made the
> mistake of trusting online information, and did
> this on a large scale.

The case of Bella Gibson and that of Sir Tim Hunt are similar in that they were both the deceitfulness of an individual resulting in loss of reputation, but they are different in that Bella Gibson was a case of Bella discrediting herself by her own deceitfulness, whereas Sir Tim Hunt was a case of the deceitfulness of a Character Assasin with an Agenda (old white men are sexist) discrediting him and ruining his reputation - with the help of useful idiots enabling her witch hunt. The useful idiots are a danger to society.


> Once you have a mob of
> followers, or a lynch mob, the next person who
> joins it does not seem to be making an effort of
> checking the facts...


Yeah, we saw that in the Ferguson lynch mob - the lies became exposed, yet the truth was ignored, a slogan ("hands up, don't shoot" ) became a meme, born out of a known lie (that Michael Brown was shot in the back while his hands were up and he was saying "don't shoot" ) to fit an agenda (white cops are racists), with useful idiots demanding punishment by the authorities. Ignorant people still believe it, others know it was a lie but still perpetuate the lie, and it will probably go down in the history books as truth.

I see you're focusing on the one in a thousand case where this may be true.
the other 999 consist of police lies and coverup



>eah, we saw that in the Ferguson lynch mob - the lies became exposed, yet the truth was ignored, a slogan ("hands up, don't shoot" ) became a meme, born out of a known lie (that Michael Brown was shot in the back while his hands were up and he was saying "don't shoot" ) to fit an agenda (white cops are racists), with useful idiots demanding punishment by the authorities. Ignorant people still believe it, others know it was a lie but still perpetuate the lie, and it will probably go down in the history books as truth. eye rolling smiley

Yes, I'm focusing on a case that fits Gosia's assertion -


> Once you have a mob of
> followers, or a lynch mob, the next person who
> joins it does not seem to be making an effort of
> checking the facts...

I guess one significant factor that may play role here is human empathy. We want to empathize with the cancer patient, and so we take her side, and trust her. Perhaps similarly, we empathize with the victims of sexist behaviour and take their side. Or we empathize with the victim of police brutality and take their side. So in each case empathy makes us trust the person. Even if their story is completely false.

Perhaps the fact that empathy is a stronger force than critical thinking is a positive thing. I would say so.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

To clarify my position -

I think there are racist cops, but I don't know how many there are, and I don't think all white cops are racist. I don't like the Militarization of the Police Force over the past years. I don't like the Federalization/Government Take-Over of the Police Departments that is happening now thanks to the opportunity Ferguson afforded.

I'm shocked when I read about the Hazmat guys raiding homes of innocent people. I'm shocked when I read about cops responding to calls for help and killing the family dogs, children, disabled, elderly, etc. and tasing anybody and everybody.

But something else that I abhor that applies to more than just the issue of policing in our society - Deception/Lying. Specifically Disregarding Facts to Advance an Agenda in our Culture, which is what this thread and the two cases (and I provided a third) we're discussing is about.

Trust is built in your wiring. It was needed to survive in society. Sometimes I watch the TV show "Brain Games." There are methods of exploitation that are justified by the end results. The worst criminals do not think they are bad. They justifiy it. It spreads to governments.

Canadian government caught doing 'false flag' cyberwarfare attacks: [www.rawfoodsupport.com]

rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good points Kiwibird. I think that perhaps
> sometimes we are being too afraid to appear
> inpolite if we ask for the evidence? As an
> example, because Belle looks like a nice girl, it
> would be inpolite to ask, did she really have
> cancer and can she please show us the medical
> records to prove them? I think it should be OK to
> ask. It should be encouraged to ask. And those who
> are asked should act professionally, and respond
> to such requests, and do so in a nice manner,
> rather than getting offended or becoming evasive
> for example.

I also think it should be ok to (politely) ask these types of self-professed 'gurus' questions about what they're saying/promoting. They should be able to provide satisfactory evidence/answers too. Once you put yourself into the public eye telling fantastical stories, you open yourself up to questioning you wouldn't (or shouldn't) otherwise experience. If you don't want to be put under a microscope, don't put yourself in a position the public is seeking your advice. One of the big deciding factors of me pursing a raw diet was the fact so many raw foodists posted their blood tests or did videos on them, showing proof this way of eating is healthy along with their own personal experiences and opinions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/30/2015 05:40PM by Kiwibird.

Panchito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trust is built in your wiring. It was needed to
> survive in society. Sometimes I watch the TV show
> "Brain Games." There are methods of exploitation
> that are justified by the end results. The worst
> criminals do not think they are bad. They justifiy
> it. It spreads to governments.
>
> Canadian government caught doing 'false flag'
> cyberwarfare attacks:
> [www.rawfoodsupport.com]
> 59902#msg-259902


No surprise there, Panchito, and trust in the government is naive, ignorant, misplaced. I don't trust the government for anything they do that I can think of off the top of my head. Yet some think we need more government - either more welfare or more warfare, more regulations, or whatever, to the extent that they want to give the government more (of other people's) money, more power, and they want the government to take over more of our institutions and industry so the government can provide everything for us, calling it 'free' and 'a right' - LOL - It's crazy! But that's what we're up against.

>>>>But something else that I abhor that applies to more than just the issue of policing in our society - Deception/Lying. Specifically Disregarding Facts to Advance an Agenda in our Culture, which is what this thread and the two cases (and I provided a third) we're discussing is about.

many of those who believed or promoted the "agenda" were not deceiving or lying.
they were reporting or promoting based on their life experience and biases.

also, again i must point out that the police do exactly what you abhor, 24/7, to promote their "agenda" which is that the police have authority over you in all circumstances and they have immunity.

Sure, I don't like a lot about policing, or what the police department has become - militarization, etc., either. But I'm glad there are police in the world, and I've have incidents where they came to my rescue. Not to my rescue, really. One night, I thought someone was trying to break in, I called the police, and it turned out to be a dog scratching at the door. Another time I heard a commotion outside, in the middle of the night, called the police, and it turned out to be a bear knocking over my garbage can - LOL. Another time I saw a light outside the window in the middle of the night, I called the police, and it turned out to be my neighbor's car headlight in the distance. You'd think the police wouldn't even bother coming here anymore.

<<<...the police do exactly what you abhor, 24/7, to promote their "agenda" which is that the police have authority over you in all circumstances and they have immunity.>>>

[www.washingtonsblog.com]
Protesters Have the Right to Protest … and to Resist Unlawful Arrest
Posted on November 13, 2011 by WashingtonsBlog

...

[www.youtube.com]
When Should You Shoot a Cop
11:35 Minute Video

Lois Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sure, I don't like a lot about policing, or what
> the police department has become - militarization,
> etc., either. But I'm glad there are police in the
> world, and I've have incidents where they came to
> my rescue. Not to my rescue, really. One night, I
> thought someone was trying to break in, I called
> the police, and it turned out to be a dog
> scratching at the door. Another time I heard a
> commotion outside, in the middle of the night,
> called the police, and it turned out to be a bear
> knocking over my garbage can - LOL. Another time I
> saw a light outside the window in the middle of
> the night, I called the police, and it turned out
> to be my neighbor's car headlight in the distance.
> You'd think the police wouldn't even bother coming
> here anymore.

you have quite the 911 trigger finger.

I hear you though.

here's another one.

[www.youtube.com]

we had a bear once stop by, but he didn't come in, he just left some excrement on the back porch.