Marianne Williamson - Antidepressants Are Overprescribed for Normal Human Despair

[Puppycow]

Far be it for me to defend her. That said, Williamson should be criticized -- or not -- for the positions she actually takes, as opposed to what we may expect as typical from new age types.

Reading the Buzzfeed article, it seems that railing against anti-depressants and the pharmaceutical industry is one of her hobby horses.

Williamson also appeared to agree with a tweet claiming antidepressants have played a role in the motivation behind mass shootings, suggesting they influenced the attacker in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting.

So that's a claim that antidepressants cause mass shootings. I doubt there's any truth to it, although it's conceivable that mass shooters might be more likely to have been prescribed antidepressants at some point in their lives. Whether that's been researched properly, I don't know.

 

[Cain]

 

[Apathia]

As I always say...life is meant to be endured, not enjoyed.

But with a little bit of twisted humor, despair can be enjoyed (just a little bit).

 

[ArchSas]

Her crystals aside - in this case she seems to have a valid point:

I was thinking the same thing. I'm not a fan of how she phrased the point, and given her anti-pharma history, I doubt she thinks about this issue the way I do, but there's nothing inherently ridiculous about the idea that a lot of people are depressed for reasons that have nothing to do with biologically-based depression.

A lot of people these days seem to be depressed because of a general sense of alienation, meaninglessness, and absence of direction. Late capitalism has done a number on how a lot of people see their place in society, and it's not hard to see how many people have been trying to cope with that lately. Millennials are getting into astrology, fad diets, and lifestyle trends to find meaning. Some feel like climate change has gotten so bad, there's no hope. Pseudoscience like anti-vax and flat earth have grown because people crave the community those movements offer. MLMs are growing for the same reason. Figures like Jordan Peterson and Stefan Molyneaux has grown popular among young white men who feel like society is being taken from them. There has been a global rise in far-right politics driven by figures who promise to give people back their identity.

Now, I don't know if I would call that "normal human despair," but I've seen clear trends indicating that tons of people alive right now feel depressed about a variety of things in their life that biology doesn't have a lot to do with. And I think it's really important that some of these things start being addressed, because otherwise, people are going to keep coping in seriously unhealthy ways. That being sad, I don't think Marianne is the right person to talk about it; as a new age spiritual leader, she's kind of the problem, as far as I'm concerned, she doesn't seem to offer any meaningful solutions, and some of her criticisms seem to come from a "pharma bad" ideology. To me, this is just another example of her saying something that sounds good superficially, but without any really substance behind it.

 

[Apathia]

Far be it for me to defend her. That said, Williamson should be criticized -- or not -- for the positions she actually takes, as opposed to what we may expect as typical from new age types.

Yes. Very much so. All she said was that the meds are over prescribed.

I got fried once myself for saying that. A mental health professional got quite angry with me. Though after she had deep fired me for my ignorance and insensitivity, she herself said the meds were often prescribed inappropriately.

 

[applecorped]

the justifying is impressive and expected. Good thing she wasn't a Republican

 

[wasapi]

Despair and depression must be hard for some people to differentiate

Don't they belong together? It doesn't seem possible to have depression and not experience despair. Or despair without depression.

 

[applecorped]

I'm sure Brooke Shields agrees with Marianne Williamson or not

 

[varwoche]

the justifying is impressive and expected. Good thing she wasn't a Republican

I don't see any justifying. What in Odin's name are you referring to?

Edited by jsfisher: 

<snip> Removed Rule 0 violation.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I agree she's a nut in many respects. But on this specific idea, she's not far wrong. Americans are far too likely to run for some sort of psychotherapy, pharmacological or otherwise, to treat every little psychological "ouchie." Steve Salerno put it very well in his book "SHAM. How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless" (Crown, 2005, p. 141): "Today, as never before...given the genuinely apocalyptic threats unfolding around us, Americans have an obligation to themselves, their families, and society to quit whining, stop comparing notes on who is more diseased, addicted, or dysfunctional, and just get down to business."

Yep only scum lets apocalyptic threats get them down. They should just accept the futility of life and despair.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Williamson is polling at a whopping 0% (if she is even included on the poll at all). She is only a candidate in the most literal sense. Practically speaking, she's nobody at all.

Don't really see the election as a good reason to give her a platform. She's a crank using the primary to elevate her personal brand.

 

[ArchSas]

She's a crank using the primary to elevate her personal brand.

So was Trump, until he wasn't.

Marianne actually kind of scares me in a way than none of the other non-frontrunners do. She already has a cultish following (thanks to the support of Oprah) and knows how to use the kind of language that tons of Americans already get behind. Given enough exposure and legitimacy by the media, she could easily become a major force. I'm really, really happy that doesn't seem to be happening the way it did with Trump.

 

[theprestige]

So was Trump, until he wasn't.

Marianne actually kind of scares me in a way than none of the other non-frontrunners do. She already has a cultish following (thanks to the support of Oprah) and knows how to use the kind of language that tons of Americans already get behind. Given enough exposure and legitimacy by the media, she could easily become a major force. I'm really, really happy that doesn't seem to be happening the way it did with Trump.

I dunno. "The kind of language that tons of Americans already get behind" covers a broad spectrum of language.

There's the crypto-racist, crypto-fascist language that supposedly appeals to so many Trump voters.

Then there's the peace, love, and cooperation language that Willamson seems to be using. The presidential election is about rallying enough Americans behind one message or another. Rejecting Wiliamson's message because it appeals to a lot of Americans seems unrealistic and anti-practical.

 

[ArchSas]

I dunno. "The kind of language that tons of Americans already get behind" covers a broad spectrum of language.

There's the crypto-racist, crypto-fascist language that supposedly appeals to so many Trump voters.

Then there's the peace, love, and cooperation language that Willamson seems to be using. The presidential election is about rallying enough Americans behind one message or another. Rejecting Wiliamson's message because it appeals to a lot of Americans seems unrealistic and anti-practical.

Wait where is that even coming from? I'm not "rejecting Williamson's message," I'm just pointing out that Marianne has a lot of qualities that could make her a popular figure, and that it might not be smart to label her as a wacko that no one could possibly take seriously. That's why I was using the abstract language; I (hopefully) obviously wasn't comparing the two ideologically, just in terms of her potential to gain the kind of cult following Trump did.

 

[theprestige]

Don't they belong together? It doesn't seem possible to have depression and not experience despair. Or despair without depression.

I'm not sure they do. To me, it seems entirely possible to experience despair without also experiencing the clinical condition of depression.

I think that healthy people can and should experience the entire spectrum of human emotion, both highs and lows, when appropriate.

Depression in the sense that we're talking about here - a psychological infirmity requiring medical treatment - is a condition of experiencing the low end of the spectrum more or less continuously, as a baseline condition. It's not a temporary state of mind, caused by a healthy reaction to a real circumstance. And it's not a state of mind that responds fully to positive circumstances that would otherwise cause temporary and appropriate elation.

If one is struggling with despair, and with recovering from despair, one might treat it similarly to depression, with anti-depressants and other treatments. But these would be temporary, in the understanding that the person will hopefully soon return to their normal, healthy state. Actual depression is more of a chronic illness that requires ongoing mitigation, in order for the sufferer to enjoy the kind of life that most people think of as "normal".

 

[theprestige]

Wait where is that even coming from? I'm not "rejecting Williamson's message," I'm just pointing out that Marianne has a lot of qualities that could make her a popular figure, and that it might not be smart to label her as a wacko that no one could possibly take seriously. That's why I was using the abstract language; I (hopefully) obviously wasn't comparing the two ideologically, just in terms of her potential to gain the kind of cult following Trump did.

Ah, sorry. I misunderstood. I read "cult following" to imply a rejection of Williamson on that basis. My bad.

 

[wasapi]

Williamson is polling at a whopping 0% (if she is even included on the poll at all). She is only a candidate in the most literal sense. Practically speaking, she's nobody at all.

Don't really see the election as a good reason to give her a platform. She's a crank using the primary to elevate her personal brand.

I agree. Just reviewing some of her quotes about angels was enough to reaffirm that for me.


There is, I believe, an urgent need for humanity in the next election. Something entirely different then we have seen in this current president. But not Williamson.

 

[theprestige]

Williamson is polling at a whopping 0% (if she is even included on the poll at all). She is only a candidate in the most literal sense. Practically speaking, she's nobody at all.

I disagree. According to the DNC (as reported here by NPR), practically speaking she meets the basic requirements to be "somebody":

All "qualified" candidates are eligible to participate. A DNC official said a candidate could qualify by meeting one of two criteria:

1. Garner at least 1 percent support in three separate polls

2. Meet the grassroots fundraising threshold, which requires obtaining 65,000 unique donors and a minimum of 200 donors per state in at least 20 states​

She's qualified for the debates, that makes her at least somebody.

 

[ArchSas]

I agree. Just reviewing some of her quotes about angels was enough to reaffirm that for me.

I went though a ton of her most "ridiculous" tweets (found on various compilations usually classifying them as such) and I honestly didn't see much that was more "out there" than the kinds of things most religious or "spiritual" Americans consume regularly. Lots of politicians, too, for that matter. For example, "Visualize the oil spill plugged. Close your eyes for 5 minutes and see angels coming over it, filling it with sane and sacred thoughts" comes up a lot. Yeah, it sounds weird and funny, but it's really not much different than saying you'll pray for a situation to get better.

Shortly after reading one of those lists, I read several of Marianne's tweets out loud to my girlfriend, who grew up in a very Catholic midwest household; her first response was "Wow, my mom would love that stuff. She loves reading quotes like that about Christianity and Jesus, so without the crystals, she would be all over that." Not anything about how funny or crazy they were, that it sounds exactly like how her mom (again, very Catholic and even works at a church) likes to experience her religion. That really shocked me, and made me start thinking about Marianne completely differently. Of course, that's a lot of the appeal of new age - you can say a lot of things that sound good and are vague enough to appeal to a lot of people. Granted, she does say a lot of things that are flat out whacky, but lots of people out there are really into certain kinds of whacky.

There is, I believe, an urgent need for humanity in the next election. Something entirely different then we have seen in this current president. But not Williamson.

I'll absolutely agree about that. She's a typical new age huckster with a lot of bad ideas, and I don't want her to be able to claim concepts like love in politics as her own brand. Hopefully, she'll have trouble visualizing enough angels to accomplish that.

 

[dudalb]

Williamson is polling at a whopping 0% (if she is even included on the poll at all). She is only a candidate in the most literal sense. Practically speaking, she's nobody at all.

Don't really see the election as a good reason to give her a platform. She's a crank using the primary to elevate her personal brand.

THIS.
But because she is a Democrat some people here are going to defend her idiocies.