Seems to me that she is too smart to ignore the facts on vax. I am sure she has been given the straight dope on that. The woman is an educated woman, she’s not a moron. I think it is a business decision to give JM a voice.
It;'s WAY more disreputable than "Mythbusters.
I have no idea what “Ladders” theory is, but my distaste is for Oprah herself, not her audeience, which I haven’t given a moment’s thought too. I know that anything Oprah endorse on her show grows tremendously in popularity and sales, no matter how ridiculous, so yes, there is empirical evidence that gher audience takes her bullshit seriously. I think jumping on this observation as automatically sexist is pretty lame, though. I don’t think (and I don’t think anybody has claimed), that this means women are more susceptible to bullshit/ Most of those who fall for the bullshit promoted by Oprah are women only because most of those who watch her show are women. If I do a brisk business selling snake oil at the Texas State Fair, that doesn’t mean I’ve proven that Texans are bigger suckers than anybody else, it just means that’s where I was selling the snake oil.
She’s not too smart not to believe in psychics, and faith healing, “the Secret,” and fucking angels. She’s never struck me as particularly bright. She certainly isn’t skeptical. I think she has a certain kind of talent for being able to connect to her audience, but she’s no genius. She’s told people they can cure cancer with nothing but mind power, so I don’t see any reason she wouldn’t believe the anti-vax garbage. She certainly hasn’t ever SAID so on any of the numerous occasions she’s had Jenny M. on her show to talk about it.
I like Oprah and the Oprah hate around here gives me the giggles. Honestly, it’s exactly what I expect to find here.
I think it’s downright silly for people to claim that she has brain-dead followers who will do her bidding at the drop of a hat and swallow every spoonfed bite she dishes out. It’s a typical tactic and a fool’s dream to try to pretend that everyone who watches a show/likes an entertainer/reads a book believes every single part of the topic at hand. If you (the general you) believe that all Oprah watchers believe everything she puts on her show hook, line, and sinker than you have to be one of the stupidest people alive and you should quickly (seriously, don’t delay!) get yourself sterilized as not to fill the world with more of your kind.
I don’t care at all that she has Jenny McCarthy on her show about autism. I don’t have any kids and won’t ever have any so I barely watched the show with her on it. It seems to me that Jenny’s been able to make some progress with her own son and although it doesn’t make her an expert my any means, it doesn’t mean that every single word she has to say on the subject is bullshit. Perhaps she has a tip or two that might help a stressed out parent of an autistic child. Maybe some of the information can start a dialogue between a parent and a doctor regarding a child. I really don’t think too many people are taking every word out of Jenny McCarthy’s mouth to be the gospel truth. Jenny’s also been on other news shows (Dateline, for instance) so is everything on Dateline now crap because of that one example? Get real.
I read The Secret and no, I do not believe that you can think yourself out of cancer. I also don’t get the same conclusions that some have drawn about the book and what they interpret it to say. I do think that positive thinking can be productive and has served me well when I put it into practice. Just like any other “self help” book you read, you can take some information and use it with success while taking some and seeing failure and taking some and saying “This is crap!” right off the bat. It’s a filter in your brain and it’s pretty easy to use.
Oprah’s shows are quite a mix of topics. I TIVO them and only watch what interests me. They’ve got everything from celebrities, authors, tips on organizing, gardening, diet & exercise, fashion, parenting, financial information, world topics, etc etc. It’s not all “Find your inner spirit” and “Let’s solve autism kthxbye!”
Oprah, Tom Cruise, Nicholas Cage, and many others are like catnip to the SDMB “Me too!” crowd. They never let me down.
Says you, I guess. Why? Because Mythbusters is “scientific?” Because claims are tested, rather than merely asserted, as here where you declare it “WAY more disreputable” by fiat?
That you understand this to be “empirical evidence that gher [sic] audience takes her bullshit seriously” shows you don’t have a very good idea of what empirical evidence is. That would be a survey of Oprah viewers showing that they are more likely than an average person to believe, say, vaccines cause autism. Not that they read a highly touted book, highly touted in part due to its wildly implausible premise.
Or perhaps you believe there is a large contingent of Americans who believe in Illuminati conspiracies on the basis of the sales of The Da Vinci Code.
I blame Mythbusters for this particular inability to distinguish evidence from general trends muddled by confounding variables.
This is true, but it’s not a proof that there is no misogynistic element. Typically male diversions are not as often criticized for their lack of scientific rigor (although this is undoubtedly present in them, see the examples of the “Ladders” theory – you can wikipedia it, instead of declining to tackle the issue, Dio – and a certain teevee show about explosives and cleavage). I contend that this disparity is informed by stereotypical beliefs about the gullibility of men and women.
So she doesn’t believe it, which means she understands it’s dangerous and does it anyway?
Again, thanks for permission to hold her in contempt.
Oh, I bet she is. And she strikes me as plenty bright.
ETA: Gleena, if you are going to hold in contempt everyone that peddles crap they don’t believe in, I hope you have a whole lot of room on your hate plate.
Oprah was cool when she was, to use an overworked phrase “real.”
She forgot her roots and what it was like to be what her audience was.
She did a lot of good work in the past but nothing in the last ten years but build her own ego.
Which is a shame because she has the power to do so much good.
Mythbusters claims they “busted” the “myth” about cell phone danger at gas stations. They claim it is the driver getting in and out of the car that builds up the charge (which of course is true) but cell phones aren’t a danger. Sorry Charlie, but I’ve been with the victim of his cell phone blowing up at the gas station. When the ambulance arrived the police were taking witness statements. He was talking on his phone and didn’t get back in the car at all. He’d been talking for at least a minute while pumping the gas when it blew.
And no, this isn’t an isolated incident. The ambulance crew and the doctors at our hospital had seen these injuries before. So I’m afraid Mythbusters isn’t perfect either. Of course they give the disclaimer that a “properly working” cell phone is safe.
/hijack
No claims are made on the show at all, actually. The claims of others are tested, and yes, the testing is what makes it more reputable. You can take the scare quotes off “scientific,” by the way.
How about the fact that they flood phone lines trying to buy $30,000 machines which profess to get rid of wrinkles with radio waves, or the fact that they show up to lectures and “courses,” taught by the likes of Deepak Chopra or Marianne Williamson? Of course they take her bullshit seriously, it’s childish to try to pretend otherwise (and so is [sic]ing typos).
The Illuminati isn’t IN The Da Vinci Code, though quite a few have bought into the Holy Bloodline theory. Having said that, The Da Vinci Code was clearly identified and sold as FICTION, not fact. Oprah sells “The Secret” as “science,” which it isn’t remotely.
Prove that any such trend exists, scientist, and when yoiu’re done with that, prove that “Mythbusters” is responsible.
You are the one alleging a misogynistic element, you fucking prove it. I can tell you it sure as hell doesn’t existe for me personally, nor for my femisnist wife who loathes Oprah.
What “typically male endeavor” do you think deserves to be criticized for lack of scientific vigor? men certainly buy into all kinds of bullshit products and schemes which get criticized plenty – hair growth products, fitness machines, get rich quick schemes, “male enhancement” products, etc.
Why do I have to “tackle” it? I’ve never heard of “Ladders Theory,” so why do I have to defend it?
Prove there’s a disparity.
I bet she isn’t. Your move.
No, seriously though, the “I love her because everyone else hates her” schtick is as tired and childish and old as the “I hate her because she’s popular” schtick is.
I don’t really watch Oprah or have much of an opinion about her, but anyone who helps to peddle anti-vax bullshit is hurting the general populace by promoting the spread of disease. I don’t care if she’s secretly a genius who really believes in vaccination or not.
Holy shit, I had no idea this subject was in Great Debates. We have to prove everything in MPSIMS, now?
Cell phones blow up at gas stations? This is the first I’ve heard of it.
Why do OHs* keep calling folks childish in this thread?? What the? I gave lots of reasons why I like her, and all the redhot hate she gets heaped on her is syrup on my Oprah Pancakes. So I have to just wonder at your post. Wonder and shake my head.
Anyone who thinks this woman is truly dumb also has me wondering like hell who they go ahead and say, “ok, this person is not a complete idiot” to.
ETA: I wouldn’t call her “secretly” a genius. I would call her pretty bright, though.
OK, let me be totally clear here. I absolutely do not care one whit what her IQ is, or whether she is pretty bright, extremely bright, moderately bright, or non-bright. I have watched her show a grand total of twice, I think, and not in the last 10 years. But she’s apparently promoting the anti-vaccination nonscience bullshit that Jenny McCarthy is selling to gullible parents, and I think that is bullshit and indefensible.
I also happen to think that the sentiment “But, I’m really feeling her because she has so many haters. This one really is the thing that pulls my love most deeply for her.” is kind of childish. I am bummed that apparently other people have bogarted the term “childish” earlier in the thread and therefore made it off-limits for me to use. I will go with “lame” instead, does that work for everybody?
Color me all shades of lame, cause I do it all the time. Every time I see a lot of folks attacking someone for silly reasons, I get the irrisistable urge to like them. It is hilarious to see people hating someone so much that they can’t even admit that an obviously bright person is not an idiot.
As a matter of fact, I am lamer than you even can begin to fathom, because this stretches out across my whole life. As soon as I realized people really despise the ghetto and ridicule all things ‘ghetto’, for the silliest of reasons (because kids put rims on a Honda?), I automatically loved all things ghetto.
I like people that are hated on for silly reasons. Because there has got to be something cool about a person that brings out the hate in people with no good reason to hate.
I bow to your superior skill in rhyming arguments.
I have contempt not for people who peddle things they don’t believe in, but for people who peddle stuff that’s actively dangerous, like the idea that you shouldn’t vaccinate kids.
You can’t have it both ways. - either she’s delusional and believes JM, or she knows its dangerous and has made a “business decision” to not care. Both are contemptable, and handwaving and ad homs won’t change that.
I really am indifferent to Oprah’s other beliefs, although I find some of them odd, and I’ve watched her myself over the years when she’s had someone on that I liked or she happened to be on the breakroom TV, but giving dangerous people like JM a platform is where I draw the line.
Interestingly, were it not for the anti-vax issue, I would happily live and let live with Ms. Winfrey, given that I couldn’t be entertained at all if I worried about the stupid beliefs of a lot of celebs.
I wonder why you have so much invested in her having a good image? I’m a fan of a lot people that others might distain, but it doesn’t matter to me at all.
ETA: You have answered my question while I was posting, I suppose. Kudos to you for your ability to admit to lameness.
Hey, if the glove doesn’t fit…
You do realize that you are quite explicitly celebrating (exulting even) over your characterizaton of her as a skilled con artist who can sell anything to her fairly credulous audience because of her mad emotional connection skillz. OK that’s fine as far as it goes, hucksters are as American as apple pie so bully for her.
The problem (IMO) is that when you have a massively influential pulpit and a huge influence where people trust you, REALLY trust you, you have some sort of responsibility not to betray that trust by letting foolish people spout dangerous advice and unsubstantiated claims while you give them your tacit blessing.
You, and the other Oprah lovers in this thread can fist pump and hoot “You go girl!” all day long, but it doesn’t change the fact that she is pandering to her audience by serving up attractive spokespeople like McCarthy and her anti-vax BS, who are peddling extremely dangerous misinformation.
This is not the peddling of some spiritual goulash or new diet which people can take or leave at thier whim, this is a serious public health issue. Your tarring of people who take exception to the BS she is allowing to be peddled (and encouraging her audience to be “open minded” about) as “haters” speaks poorly to your choices of what you think is, and is not, important. You really think this anti-vax movement BS is some fucking joke? Vaccination has saved countless lives around the world and now you have a group of people trying to pin all sorts of negative consequences on getting vaccinated. Are their assertions proved scientifically in any way, shape or form. No. It’s an appeal to emotion because they “know” it’s true in thier hearts.
This isn’t playtime re the anti-vax nonsense, and your airheaded “what’s the big deal, everyone’s a con artist” attitude about Oprah’s tacit promotion of this perspective is dangerously stupid.
Astro, to be honest, yeah. I do think it is some kind of fucking joke. I don’t think that JM will have a strong impact on immunizations in this nation.
But on the outside chance that I am wrong, then I will say that everyone that has limited their Oprah hate to Oprah endorsing JM, I exclude them from the hater list.
Now, what about all the others? Oh yeah, they are just still haters.
ETA: and painting Oprah lovers as a bunch of sassy neck rolling morons shouting “you go girl” doesn’t do a thing to change the fact that the blind Oprah hate is ugly to watch. And funny. Because surely, before this recent JM thing came up, there wasn’t any Oprah hate, right?