news Marianne Williamson checkmates Fox News

[Bloodflowers.]

1 minute ago, Daddy said:

Damn, just another religious freak. They on both sides unfortunately. 

 

Marianne was praising German healthcare system in the video. Also... Biden is Catholic. Majority of Americans are religious.

 

[Daddy]

Just now, Bloodflowers. said:

Also... Biden is Catholic. Majority of Americans are religious.

Which is unfortunate. And I'm not patriotic so I couldn't care less about her praise. 

 

I don't trust people talking about sky daddies when talking politics and medical stuff. It's just wrong and silly in 2023.

[Communion]

33 minutes ago, suburbannature said:

I did not vote for Joe Biden in the democratic primaries 

Sis, this is you trying to dodge. Just because you convinced yourself thst you voted for the lesser evil in a general election doesn't mean you're free from the ramifications of still choosing that evil. Again, why should people who didn't pick any candidate in 2020's presidential election who vowed to block universal healthcare view your concerns as genuine? Also, "not Biden in the primaries" is doing a lot of heavy lifting given there's only one correct option in 2016 and 2020 if you support universal healthcare. 

 

And that candidate has full-throatedly supported Marianne's candidacy.  So if you are trying to convince anyone you supported Sanders in 2016 and 2020, and aren't being a centrist ghoul, peddling low grade smears on Williamson doesn't give credibility. 

 

No one is relying on fallacies. Your smears have all been debunked over and over, despite your need to keep posting them. How can quotes constantly referenced be about convincing people to not take AIDs medication when many of these quotes....come from before there even existed a treatment for AIDs? 

 

It takes literally just a quick search to find evidence that only was Williamson both supportive of medical treatments for AIDs by using her charity to pay for the medications for many people, but she literally used her connections to push for and support studies leading up to the first medical treatment of AIDs getting approved in 1987:

 

The expose also recounts a time when Williamson told an HIV-positive man that the "AIDS virus is not more powerful than God." While Michaelson raises the quote without context, the original expose shows that at the time Williamson wasn't talking about treatment of the illness: She was addressing a man who was concerned about how his diagnosis had rocked his steady marriage with his wife.

The Blade spoke to a longtime friend of Williamson's, David Kessler, who attempted to assuage concerns that Williamson is anti-medicine. "I remember Marianne giving men money and taking them to UCLA for the AZT study and giving them money for prescriptions," Kessler said, referring to early studies of Retrovir (AZT, zidovudine), which in 1987 became the first-ever approved HIV medication. "There's no part of Marianne that was anti-medicine."

 

There is simply no evidence that Williamson is materially anti-science. That you think you have a case to smear her as such because you hate her flowery language and belief in God while defending one of the most conservative Dem presidents in history by carrying water for Joe "I would veto universal healthcare" Biden is embarrassing for you, not others. 

Edited March 20, 2023 by Communion

[Bloodflowers.]

15 minutes ago, Daddy said:

Which is unfortunate. And I'm not patriotic so I couldn't care less about her praise. 

 

I don't trust people talking about sky daddies when talking politics and medical stuff. It's just wrong and silly in 2023.

 

Marianne isn't running on theocracy so her faith has nothing to do with such politics. If you watched the video or went through her platform, her policies focus on universal healthcare, paid sickness leave, paid maternity and partenity leave, tuition free college, pro-green policies, reparations for black Americans, etc.

 

[suburbannature]

5 minutes ago, Communion said:

Sis, this is you trying to dodge. Just because you convinced yourself thst you voted for the lesser evil in a general election doesn't mean you're free from the ramifications of still choosing that evil. Again, why should people who didn't pick any candidate in 2020's presidential election who vowed to block universal healthcare view your concerns as genuine? Also, "not Biden in the primaries" is doing a lot of heavy lifting given there's only one correct option in 2016 and 2020 if you support universal healthcare. 

 

And that candidate has full-throatedly supported Marianne's candidacy.  So if you are trying to convince anyone you supported Sanders in 2016 and 2020, and aren't being a centrist ghoul, peddling low grade smears on Williamson doesn't give credibility. 

 

No one is relying on fallacies. Your smears have all been debunked over and over, despite your need to keep posting them. How can quotes constantly referenced be about convincing people to not take AIDs medication when many of these quotes....come from before there even existed a treatment for AIDs? 

 

It takes literally just a quick search to find evidence that only was Williamson both supportive of medical treatments for AIDs by using her charity to pay for the medications for many people, but she literally used her connections to push for and support studies leading up to the first medical treatment of AIDs getting approved in 1987:

 

The expose also recounts a time when Williamson told an HIV-positive man that the "AIDS virus is not more powerful than God." While Michaelson raises the quote without context, the original expose shows that at the time Williamson wasn't talking about treatment of the illness: She was addressing a man who was concerned about how his diagnosis had rocked his steady marriage with his wife.

The Blade spoke to a longtime friend of Williamson's, David Kessler, who attempted to assuage concerns that Williamson is anti-medicine. "I remember Marianne giving men money and taking them to UCLA for the AZT study and giving them money for prescriptions," Kessler said, referring to early studies of Retrovir (AZT, zidovudine), which in 1987 became the first-ever approved HIV medication. "There's no part of Marianne that was anti-medicine."

 

There is simply no evidence that Williamson is materially anti-science. That you think you have a case to smear her as such because you hate her flowery language and belief in God while defending one of the most conservative Dem presidents in history by carrying water for Joe "I would veto universal healthcare" Biden is embarrassing for you, not others. 

My god. The blissful ignorance in quoting Marianne's "longtime friend" as the sole defense of a woman's decades-long criticism of medical intervention in favor of a "New Thought" belief system, that is well-cited in medical research for the harmful adverse effects it has caused vulnerable patients. I've experienced that both as a clinician and have studied pseudo-sciences extensively, and repeatedly shouting "it has been debunked" into an echo chamber does not negate that (or her years-long peddling of the belief system). Regardless of the validity of that single quote, the claim is not that Williamson has vocalized exclusively anti-medicine views, but that she has repeatedly cast doubt on medical interventions including psychotropic medications and vaccinations and - again - shielded her views and past quotes with a shoehorned anti-Big Pharma stance. I've seen your post history and while I'm not surprised that you're this easily swayed by a politician's Veep-esque lip service, it is disheartening when viewed as an amalgamation of the general public. 

 

[Communion]

14 minutes ago, suburbannature said:

The blissful ignorance in quoting Marianne's "longtime friend"

You really are embarrassing. You have been presented multiple sources confirming Project Angel Food provided both funding for AIDs medication and helped get those with the disease to participate in studies before a treatment existed. 

 

You had the audacity to talk about fallacies but then go "I'm not gonna believe anyone defending Williamson if they were part of her charity". Who else is supposed to speak evidence of Project Angel Food paying for their medication than...the people whose medication was paid for themselves? 

 

I rather you just be honest. 99% of your posts are defending centrist, right-wing Democrats. Your entire post history displays this. You were anti-Sanders and anti-M4A. You have posts defending celebs and calling them "far left" for....hating Trump and being a pro-Biden Republican? You are not a progressive and not part of the progressive movement. Own that. 

 

Be honest and simply just say that your affluent and privileged background makes you reject candidates who don't cater to PMC elites (you're not beating the allegations by relying on empty credentiaism as a defensive fallacy like some professional-managerial class ghoul). 

 

How do you rexoncole being a healthcare professional and having voted against Medicare For All aka the only viable plan for universal healthcare put forward in the last 40 years? How do you feel knowing your support for Biden is so tone deaf that you can't see you're supporting someone so awful that even the kooky crystal rock lady is more appealing to most people who aren't making six figures in some metropolitan city off of some affluent degree?

Edited March 20, 2023 by Communion

[Bloodflowers.]

17 minutes ago, Communion said:

You really are embarrassing. You have been presented multiple sources confirming Project Angel Food provided both funding for AIDs medication and helped get those with the disease to participate in studies before a treatment existed. 

 

You had the audacity to talk about fallacies but then go "I'm not gonna believe anyone defending Williamson if they were part of her charity". Who else is supposed to speak evidence of Project Angel Food paying for their medication than...the people whose medication was paid for themselves? 

 

I rather you just be honest. 99% of your posts are defending centrist, right-wing Democrats. Your entire post history displays this. You were anti-Sanders and anti-M4A. You have posts defending celebs and calling them "far left" for....hating Trump and being a pro-Biden Republican? You are not a progressive and not part of the progressive movement. Own that. 

 

Be honest and simply just say that your affluent and privileged background makes you reject candidates who don't cater to PMC elites (you're not beating the allegations by relying on empty credentiaism as a defensive fallacy like some professional-managerial class ghoul). 

 

How do you rexoncole being a healthcare professional and having voted against Medicare For All aka the only viable plan for universal healthcare put forward in the last 40 years? How do you feel knowing your support for Biden is so tone deaf that you can't see you're supporting someone so awful that even the kooky crystal rock lady is more appealing to most people who aren't making six figures in some metropolitan city off of some affluent degree?

 

The question we should be asking ourselves is why are they even bringing up these points as it relates to her candidacy? We should be discussing her policies and critique that, instead we have to discuss 80s Marianne Williamson quotes on faith and untreatable illnesses from that era as it that has something to do with policies she would be having control over as president in 2025-2029 ksksjsksk the low-picking fruit for right-wing ATRLers that are digging to try and bash her image is so funny to me

 

Edited March 20, 2023 by Bloodflowers.

[Miss Show Business]

I'm just here for those essays.

[JustHoran]

FOX News knows this delusional woman never has a chance of the White House, but hopes that they can use her to split votes for Joe so he loses to whoever the Republican nominee is. Expect her to be on FOX News lots.

[suburbannature]

4 minutes ago, Communion said:

You really are embarrassing. You have been presented multiple sources confirming Project Angel Food provided both funding for AIDs medication and helped get those with the disease to participate in studies before a treatment existed. 

 

You had the audacity to talk about fallacies but then go "I'm not gonna believe anyone defending Williamson if they were part of her charity". Who else is supposed to speak evidence of Project Angel Food paying for their medication than...the people whose medication was paid for themselves? 

 

I rather you just be honest. 99% of your posts are defending centrist, right-wing Democrats. Your entire post history displays this. You were anti-Sanders and anti-M4A. You have posts defending celebs and calling them "far left" for....hating Trump and being a pro-Biden Republican? You are not a progressive and not part of the progressive movement. Own that. 

 

Be honest and simply just say that your affluent and privileged background makes you reject candidates who don't cater to PMC elites (you're not beating the allegations by relying on empty credentiaism as a defensive fallacy like some professional-managerial class ghoul). 

 

How do you rexoncole being a healthcare professional and having voted against Medicare For All aka the only viable plan for universal healthcare put forward in the last 40 years? How do you feel knowing your support for Biden is so tone deaf that you can't see you're supporting someone so awful that even the kooky crystal rock lady is more appealing to most people who aren't making six figures in some metropolitan city off of some affluent degree?

Do you typically defend your viewpoints through deflection and complete fantasy? The entirety of your third paragraph, for instance, is misleading at best, made-up at worst. For example, I did not state that the celebrity in question was "far left" for "hating Trump and voting Biden," that she known to be "far left" because of historical statements dating back to the late-2000s citing left-leaning sociopolitical causes. Also, please do enlighten me on my affluent background (and any evidence of my being "anti-M4A.)"

 

And yet again, you're failing to understand the criticisms of Williamson's public endorsement of these belief systems. It is not that she has gone on record saying she is strictly anti-medicine or anti-vaccine, no, and she has not to my knowledge. It's more subversive than that, and accomplished via casting doubt on medical treatment (e.g. blaming a woman's suicide on her psychotropic medications, calling vaccine mandates "Draconian" before swiftly changing tune the next day, the New Thought view of sickness deriving from weak spirituality, calling clinical depression a "scam.") She attempts to mask these comments through apologies, double speak, or via the Trumpian tactic of accusing critics of being driven by political smear campaigns, but any astute voter should be able to see through that kind of self-serving rhetoric when her history is easily-accessible online.  

 

You have a nasty, frequent habit of contorting people's words into extremes or completely different meanings (and yet simultaneously looking the other way when a politician has explicitly stated her dedication to the New Thought movement). For instance, you somehow changed my reference to you quoting Marianne's friend as your only source into, "I'm not gonna believe anyone defending Williamson if they were part of her charity." It's a commonly-employed debate technique meant to exhaust and distract an opponent, but is easily seen for its artificiality. 

[Communion]

13 minutes ago, Bloodflowers. said:

 

The question we should be asking ourselves is why are they even bringing up these points as it relates to her candidacy? We should be discussing her policies and critique that, instead we have to discuss 80s Marianne Williamson quotes on faith and untreatable illnesses as it that has something to do with policies should would be having control over as president in 2025-2029 ksksjsksk the low-picking fruit for right-wing ATRLers that are digging to try and bash her image is so funny to me

 

Because these same DC privileged ghouls who supported someone as UNQUALIFIED and far-right as Hillary Clinton in 2016 and jumped from centrist flop to centrist flop by going from Kamala to Beto to Pete in 2020 want us to not realize all of their pet project candidates would rather see 60k Americans continue to die yearly from not being able to afford healthcare than be inconvenienced by having to share doctor office waiting rooms with poor people.

 

It's like a bunch of out-of-touch coastal elite CNN panelists clutching their pearls while trying to carry water for the fact that Joe Biden literally said he would VETO universal healthcare:

Since Cinton stole the primary in 2016, over 400k Americans have died and are dead because they were too poor for healthcare, and they died because of Democrats being against Medicare For All. 

 

People talking about "DANGERS OF PSEUDOSCIENCE" while voting for Democrats whose pockets are lined with the dead bodies of people denied care by their insurance giant donors.  Centrists Dems should be asking for forgiveness once history unfolds and they find themselves on the wrong side - not PMC-style scolding.

 

Edited March 20, 2023 by Communion

[Communion]

2 minutes ago, suburbannature said:

[snipped whataboutism and nonsense]

WHY DID JOE BIDEN SAY HE'D VETO MEDICARE FOR ALL?

 

 

[suburbannature]

That's what I thought. Avoids answering my questions like the plague, and accuses someone discussing the topic at hand of "whataboutism" before proceeding to use exactly that via a reference to Biden, with whom I do not agree politically and have not referenced once in this thread. 

 

 

[SmittenCake]

excellent interview 

[Communion]

26 minutes ago, suburbannature said:

 Avoids answering my questions like the plague

Your questions have been answered repeatedly. Your continued refusal to actually meaningfully engage with the choices in front of you - "I never mentioned Biden? Who says I am supporting Biden? I don't mention him even though I'm attacking the sole challenger to him in the primary to his left!?" - shows you're acting in bad faith and not actually concerned about the political ramifications of Williamson as a candidate. 

 

Because there is no genuine way to dedicate 100x more time on Williamson than Biden - as you have done - when Williamson can only, at worst, be considered a misguided fool preaching feel good potions that don't work, while you're silent about those with actual power, who continue to malign the poor and promote anti-science. Biden let hundreds of thousands of low-income Americans die from COVID by "letting it rip" - why? Where did you condemn this?

 

You have been on this forum for almost 10 years. I have been on here for almost 8. You have not once criticized Biden. So yes, when you even concede you have no actual evidence of Williamson acting with malice or intent to deceive, but can only think of conspiracies that her rosy language is "double-speak" and that her gospels are actually "cynical manipulations based on what *I* know about people *like* HER!", you are not serious.

 

If you want to prove to us you are not a shill for corporate Dems, show us. Link us to posts of you criticizing Biden. Show us where you understand what actual material harm is and how it is not found in spooks and spells and puppy dog tails or caricatures of faith but in powerful corporations sentencing 60k Americans to death yearly.

 

Show us where you speak on the harm Biden continues to do. You can continue with the personal attacks (while also trying to report those who give it to you just as good as you try to dish out) but that won't change that it's been two election cycles on here and no one is believing these establishment Dem games anymore.

Edited March 21, 2023 by Communion

[suburbannature]

16 minutes ago, Communion said:

Your questions have been answered repeatedly. Your continued refusal to actually meaningfully engage with the choices in front of you - "I never mentioned Biden? Who says I am supporting Biden? I don't mention him even though I'm attacking the sole challenger to him in the primary to his left!?" - shows you're acting in bad faith and not actually concerned about the political ramifications of Williamson as a candidate. 

 

Because there is no genuine way to dedicate 100x more time on Williamson than Biden - as you have done - when Williamson can only, at worst, be considered a misguided fool preaching feel good potions that don't work, while you're silent about those with actual power, who continue to malign the poor and promote anti-science.

 

You have been on this forum for almost 10 years. I have been on here for almost 8. You have not once criticized Biden. So yes, when you even concede you have no actual evidence of Williamson acting with malice or intent to deceive, but can only think of conspiracies that her rosy language is "double-speak" and that her gospels are actually "cynical manipulations based on what *I* know about people *like* HER!", you are not serious.

 

If you want to prove to us you are not a shill for corporate Dems, show us. Link us to posts of you criticizing Biden. Show us where you understand what actual material harm is and how it is not found in spooks and spells and puppy dog tails or caricatures of faith but in powerful corporations sentencing 60k Americans to death yearly.

 

Show us where you speak on the harm Biden continues to do. You can continue with the personal attacks (while also trying to report those who give it to you just as good as you try to dish out) but that won't change that it's been two election cycles on here and no one is believing these establishment Dem games anymore.

No, dear. You made the allegations as a distraction technique by referencing my apparent affluent background and alleged anti-M4A past posts, and I will ask again for you to both describe your knowledge of my "affluent background" and to provide explicit evidence of those posts. 

 

I find it amusing that you relegated yourself to complaining about personal attacks (I wasn't aware that pointing out the many flaws in your arguments was a personal attack, but I digress) after you've called me "a privileged shill, an affluent DC elite, a centrist ghoul, embarrassing," falsely accused me of being anti-universal healthcare, and invented my socioeconomic background.

 

I'm cognizant of your repeated attempts in vain to move the conversation away from Williamson's flaws as a politician - the subject at hand - but I'm afraid that will not work. Your best retort was to call her own direct quotes conspiracies in your most recent reply. I'd say that summarizes your endorsement of her quite well. 

 

 

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by suburbannature

[Flanders]

Wow @suburbannature got ******* skull dragged in hea

[suburbannature]

5 minutes ago, Flanders said:

Wow @suburbannature got ******* skull dragged in hea

Please, the way that's the exact opposite of what happened and the other user has resorted to personal attacks, fantasy-writing, ignoring replies, and employment of a half dozen logical fallacies. I don't find it surprising that you'd contort reality that way.

 

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by suburbannature

[Communion]

28 minutes ago, suburbannature said:

Your best retort was to call her own direct quotes conspiracies

Syntax is important to understand. Especially if you're going to accuse people of "being easily fooled by smooth-talking politicians". No one called Williamson's words conspiracies nor you attempting (emphasis on the attempt!) to barely quote her to be a conspiracy in itself.

 

No, the conspiracy referenced is you taking someone going "no, I am of course for medical intervention, and any interpretation of my words to suggest otherwise is false" and going "HMMM SEE? SHE'S PURPOSEFULLY HIDING BEHIND PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY TO HIDE THAT SHE *DOES* WANT PEOPLE TO INTERPRET HER WORDS THAT WAY, AND ONLY WILL PRETEND OTHERWISE WHEN CALLED OUT".

 

This is of course a conspiracy because its suggestion is debunked by Williamson literally advocating for medical intervention, for the usage of psychotropic drugs for mental illnesses, and for vaccines. If someone wanted to sneakily poison the well regarding these topics.. why would they then earnestly promote them to prove their support?

 

This is why I called you privileged, because your interactions with politics are rooted in the abstract. 

 

Want to know how I know Biden is a ghoul who hates poor people? Because he materially, factually uses his power to hoard wealth and resources away from poor people, objectively attempting to make life harder. We can tangibly measure it. It's not "feelings" or "theories". It's data-driven and factual.

 

Meanwhile, your conspiracy that Marianne is some "New Age" villainous is rooted in

• 1) your scholarly reading about a movement you *believe* Marianne to be a believer in despite a lack of material connection to it;
• 2) your belief that her actions* are somehow not meaningful evidence to her support for science because your interpretations of her *words* overlap too heavily in your *interpretations* of New Age thought;
  • *-Her actions being having spent her life promoting medical intervention for AIDs and, by virtue of supporting Medicare For All, promoting access to psychotropic drugs and treatments as a right and not reserved for those with insurance.

You're more repulsed by the aesthetics and linguistics she uses than the actual substance.

 

You object more to her saying "God is more powerful than AIDs - believe it and you can overcome it" as a way to boost people's morale than you care about that she organized gay men to participate in medical studies needed to develop a treatment to begin with.

 

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by Communion

[teresaguidice]

2 hours ago, suburbannature said:

I'd love to see you debunk her own words. Go ahead.

gay men in the epicenter of the crisis who were there have debunked it

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CpwNgOiAyCN/?hl=en

[qurl]

she is an unserious candidate that knows the exact leftist talking points to parrot to get twitter homosexuals and disaffected left-leaning voters to stan her , ironically at first but now it’s metastasized into something less funny and more stupid

 

sure she brings up good points and issues; she has carefully studied what leftists are urning for and has latched onto the movement in her own quest for power …. Bernie would remain the superior candidate but he won’t run against Biden again 

[suburbannature]

1 minute ago, Communion said:

Let's be literate, please. Syntax is important to understand. Especially if you're going to accuse people of "being easily fooled by smooth-talking politicians". No one called Williamson's words conspiracies nor the act of attempting (emphasis on the attempt!) to barely quote her to be a conspiracy in itself.

 

No, the conspiracy being referencing is you taking someone going "no, I am of course for medical intervention, and any interpretation of my words to suggest otherwise is false" and going "HMMM SEE? SHE'S PURPOSEFULLY HIDING BEHIND THE PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY TO HIDE THAT SHE *DOES* WANT PEOPLE TO INTERPRET HER WORDS AS SUCH, AND ONLY WILL PRETEND OTHERWISE WHEN CALLED OUT".

 

This is of course a conspiracy because its suggestion is debunked by Williamson literally advocating for medical intervention, the usage of psychotropic drugs for mental illnesses, and vaccines. If someone wanted to sneakily poison the well regarding these topics.. why would they then earnestly promote them to prove their support?

 

This is why I called you privileged, because your interactions with politics are rooted in the abstract. 

 

Want to know how I know Biden is a ghoul who hates poor people? Because he materially, factually uses his power to hoard wealth and resources away from poor people, objectively attempting to make life harder. We can tangibly measure it. It's not "feelings" or "theories". It's data-driven and factual.

 

Meanwhile, your conspiracy that Marianne is some "New Age" villainous is rooted in 1) your scholarly reading about a movement you *believe* Marianne to be a believer in despite a lack of material connection to it and 2) that her actions (promoting medical intervention for AIDs, being the only candidate to support psychotropic drugs being a right by virtue of supporting Medicare For All) are somehow not meaningful evidence to her support for science because your interpretations of her *words* overlap too heavily in your *interpretations* of New Age thought that, again, you're more repulsed by the aesthetics and linguistics than the actual substance.

 

 

I'm sorry, but you don't understand the difference between New Age and New Thought, and I'm supposed to take your deconstruction of her past statements seriously? If you had cared to actually read my posts when you were busy appealing to extremes and deflecting, you'd have seen that I've already addressed the ways in which Williamson attempts to defend her ideology or public fear mongering through double speak, outright denial, or apologies (which, btw, do not constitute a debunking).  I'm not "appalled" by rhetoric - I'm appalled by her public, repeated, word-for-word endorsement of an ideology that I have seen be dangerous for vulnerable patients. 

 

Quote

June 2018 (without explicit evidence of Spade taking antidepressants, no less): How many public personalities on antidepressants have to hang themselves before the FDA does something, Big Pharma cops to what it knows, and the average person stops falling for this?”

 

Quote

Williamson also apologized Thursday in the interview for previously calling clinical depression “a scam” while on a podcast, acknowledging that it was “a glib comment” that was “wrong of me to say.”

Quote

June 2019 - called vaccine mandates "Draconian" and "Orwellian" and makes a comparison to abortion rights, despite the fact that someone choosing or choosing not to receive an abortion does not have an impact on public health akin to the refusal to be vaccinated for a preventable disease. Again followed by a swift change in message meets non-sequituir apology. “I understand that many vaccines are important and save lives,” Williamson wrote in June. “I also understand some of the skepticism that abounds today about drugs which are rushed to market by Big Pharma. I am sorry that I made comments which sounded as though I question the validity of life-saving vaccines. That is not my feeling and I realize that I misspoke.”

Quote

Wrote, "Sickness is an illusion and does not actually exist” and encouraged her readers to see “sickness as our own love that needs to be reclaimed" while casting doubt on depression and the use of psychotropic medication in a book. 

This core belief oft-repeated by Williamson over a span of decades states that physical and mental manifestations of illness derive from spiritual weakness, casting doubt on various forms of health treatment in favor of self- or spiritual-improvement. This also disproportionately impacts marginalized populations, particularly those with disabilities, who are already more susceptible to harm, medical abuse, and being doubted while seeking treatment. When I referenced by own work, it is because I have disproportionately witnessed marginalized and neurodivergent populations avoid seeking healthcare or be stigmatized due to similar sentiments.

 

Again, as far as the personal insults you made, you made the allegations as a distraction technique by referencing my apparent affluent background and alleged anti-M4A past posts, and I will ask a third time for you to both describe your knowledge of my "affluent background and being a "DC elite" and to provide explicit evidence of those aforementioned anti-M4A posts. You cannot simply weasel your way out of backing up your statements by claiming that you meant you had deduced "privilege" via focus on the "abstract."

 

[suburbannature]

21 minutes ago, teresaguidice said:

gay men in the epicenter of the crisis who were there have debunked it

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CpwNgOiAyCN/?hl=en

Not a single one of those quotes somehow "debunks" the quotes from her own book and an LA Times profile that I referenced. I'd like to know how other people's experiences with her somehow negates quotes she has made in the past before changing tune or apologizing in the public sphere, a motif I have continually discussed in this thread as an example of her unreliability. 

[teresaguidice]

24 minutes ago, suburbannature said:

Not a single one of those quotes somehow "debunks" the quotes from her own book and an LA Times profile that I referenced. I'd like to know how other people's experiences with her somehow negates quotes she has made in the past before changing tune or apologizing in the public sphere, a motif I have continually discussed in this thread as an example of her unreliability. 

i was referring to the first quote in your OP which is bandied about a lot implying she told gay men with AIDS to end treatment and let love cure them, and i personally believe testimonials from AIDS patients who were there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. 

 

some of her language in her self-help days was imprecise in regards to medicine. a lot of it is out of context though. regardless, i personally do not care. a new age quack who is cogently evangelizing the most important policy issues that the party will barely touch is the better option for me than a certified guarantee of absolutely nothing with the status quo. i don't expect much from her campaign but "um ackshulie she's anti vax" is such a lame distraction imo. 

Edited March 21, 2023 by teresaguidice

[Communion]

48 minutes ago, suburbannature said:

I'm sorry, but you don't understand the difference between New Age and New Thought

That you think Marianne has some connection to "New Thought" as a belief system is again a conspiracy theory rooted in no material evidence. You will literally find nowhere in anything she has written that she supports ideas by people like Louise Hay that prayer can actually physically heal the body.

 

This is why you were called out for being offended over aesthetics versus substance. 

 

You claim Williamson is peddling New Thought teachings simply because you believe the New Ageism vernacular is too similar and thus hints at her *true* intentions, even when the evidence you share shows she is not a New Thought believer. You literally show her course-correcting when told that her emphasis on spiritual wellness could be misinterpreted as an attack on psychotropic medications or the importance of vaccines. 

 

You literally have to snip the "A Return to Love" quote you reference to claim she believes in New Thought ideas like implied. I wonder why you'd cut off most of the quote to frame her as not believing that sickness is indeed a physical reality that we do actually experience?

 

Convenient to chop off where she speaks only of the spiritual world of the subconscious - which as an atheist, I get thinking this is silly - and offers prayer as a means to comfort the soul, while praying for God to deliver "worldy" solutions like a CURE for AIDS. Cause she recognizes it is a SICKNESS that is PHYSICALLY REAL and can ONLY BE TREATED through MEDICAL TREATMENT.  Trying to dogpile on Williamson for looking to God for comfort is like mocking the religious who take comfort in thinking God gives doctors their knowledge to heal.

 

What you quoted (in red) versus the full quotes:

Quote

A friend of mine told me that we're not punished for our sins, but by our sins. Sickness is not a sign of God’s judgment on us, but of our judgment on ourselves. If we were to think that God created our sickness, how could we turn to Him for healing? As we’ve already established, God is all that is good. He creates only love, therefore he did not create sickness. Sickness is an illusion and does not actually exist. It is part of our worldly dream, our self-created nightmare. Our prayer to God is that He awaken us from the dream.

--

Healing results from transformed perception of our relationships to illness, one in which we respond to the problem with love instead of fear. When a child presents a cut finger to his or her mother, the woman doesn’t say, 'Bad cut.' Rather, she kisses the finger, showers it with love in an unconscious, instinctive activation of the healing process. Why should we think differently about critical illness? Cancer and AIDS and other serious illnesses are physical manifestations of a psychic scream and their message is not 'hate me, but 'Love me.'"

--

In the traditional Western medical model, a healer’s job is to attack disease. But if the consciousness of attack is the ultimate problem, how could it be the ultimate answer? A miracle worker’s job is not to attack illness, but rather to stimulate the natural forces of healing. We turn our eyes away from sickness to the love that lies beyond it. No sickness can diminish our capacity to love. Does that mean that it is a mistake to take medicine? Absolutely not.

--

When the cure for AIDS is finally found, we will give prizes to a few scientists, but many of us will know that millions and millions of prayers helped it happen.

Again, Marianne's biggest crime is dabbling in aesthetics you find unappealing. I would happily concede if you said you thought the kooky 'love is all we need' #godisgood stuff was silly and you couldn't vibe with it due to negative feelings of religion. But to imply something sinister and malicious, without evidence to back up said claim, is slanderous. 

 

And I'm sympathetic to those who have negative relationships with faith and religion, especially in regards to how it impacts their medical care, but to frame Williamson as a "New Thought" believer who thinks fevers and mental illness aren't actually real because she BELIEVES IN PRAYER is basically to mock the vast majority of Americans who also do.

 

You can't take issue with Williamson's views on spirituality without essentially mocking every religious person who prays to God at the bedside of a dying loved one because they think such will do something in the end.

Edited March 21, 2023 by Communion